Quote:
Originally posted by wst3
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
However the fumdamental point I made was that the creator also must be able to profit from his creation - as muscians should be able to profit from their's. The problem with music is that for all practical purposes, it is all but public domain after five years - and the industry's non-innovators don't like it.
|
How is music "all but public domain" after five years?
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
In some other points: the internet's first major function was to share Grateful Dead concert --- in the 1970s. The internet is that old - just was mostly in the acemdemic community.
|
The internet goes back to the late 50's, and it's principle purpose up until the world wide web was the dissemination of information between the DOD and academia. That tape trading went on between deadhead geeks at universities didn't bother anyone, including the Greatful Dead, back then because the band encouraged taping and trading.
[/b]
|
The NY Times publishes a news report today. Should one wish to republish the report, the NY Times owns the copyright and must be consulted. However we all routinely photocopy and use those articles even when we don't buy the newspaper. Of course, the NY Times, et al have adjusted to these new technologies (Xerox machines) which make the articles all but public domain rather quickly.
The problems with music dissemination was made obvious with Dead Head concert exchanges twenty years ago. IOW music, like newspaper stories, were to become all but public domain just as quickly. Any responsible music industry executive should have seen the writing on the wall a generation ago. They either did not see, or (more likely)they just played ostrich. Either way, they now have the Napster and China problems they deserve.
Again, the victims of this mismanagement are artists. The little people always suffer first when top management is anti-innovation. That is unfortunate but it is a symptom - is not the problem to be solved. The problem is that technology moves on. Not only are new standards for copyright, just conpensation, etc necessay for music BUT the same problem looms for movies and books. The same problem will only fester and reappear in all other media industries.
Old copyright laws worked because the hardware protected the software. Good records could not easily be reproduced. Books were too difficult to pirate. Decent movie copies were difficult to create and replay at home. All this is changing. We even have copy machine technology at home. Good music was reproducible in DAT and now on the internet. DVD movies will soon be easy to reproduce. And yes, even digital paper (discussed in Cellar Mark II) will be here soon. You download a book into your digial paper - something akin to bubble paper. How will the industry address open book exchanges?
IOW the old copyright laws have been subverted by innovation. How can we demand new 'horse and carriage' laws when everyone has automobiles. That is the problem with current copyright laws. They assume the old hardware (vinyl records, printing press, large heavy movie projectors and 8mm movie cameras) will remain the current technology. Top industry leaders fear to face the innovation music (a bad pun).
Recently this got more interesting. The EU has decided that the music industry conspires to keep prices high. The EU will either sue the music industry like the Feds went after IBM and Microsoft - or penalize with their new EU laws.
None of what I say claims that the artists are getting too much. On the contrary. The artists receive so little for their creations - much like the farmer now earns so little from a loaf of bread even though bread prices remain high. There is a problem with the middle men who have not addressed their China, et al problems, who have ignored how new technologies require new business models, who think they will encrypt their problems away and who now run to the government for protection - only demanding protection for their artists when it was convenient.
Napster is but a small example of serious copyright problems not just with music, but coming to all media. China type problems are far more serious. Both Napster and China are indicative of a music industry now, and other medias later, that have refused to address new copyright requirements. Current and future technology make current copyright laws and current business models obsolete.
If we don't address copyright and patent laws, then who will suffer. Not the big industry leaders who created the problem. Unfortunately the first victims will always be the little guys - the artists, writers, etc. You already see such people suffering in the commmercial actors strike (call Jaime Lee Curtis a scum bag for crossing picket lines). The upcoming actors strike again will be necessary to protect the actors. But none of this addresses the problems. These strikes protect the little people from the sypmtoms of a bigger problem. That bigger problem is myopia in the top media corporate offices - myopia which exists because not enough people have been hurt yet. That last sentence should be scary for everyone because, as noted earlier, those who will be hurt most are innocent victims - the artists.