Copyright Serves Middlemen, Not Content Creators

from the as-it's-always-been dept

The original copyright law, the Statute of Anne, went into effect 300 years ago. And its purpose was not to protect content creators at all, but to protect the middlemen -- the printers. Little has changed since then, but you wouldn't know it to hear those middlemen talking about how much they're speaking up for the interests of content creators. As our recent posts on both RIAA accounting and Hollywood accounting have shown, these "industries," that claim to represent content creators' interests, work pretty damn hard to screw content creators out of receiving money.

The good news, however, is that more and more people are realizing this. Copyright is not about protecting creators' rights, but giving middlemen more power, and a recent panel discussion involving music industry insiders and lawyers suggests that at least some are coming to terms with this:
The "biggest flaw in music is not copyright, it's business practice," said attorney and lecturer Ben Challis. Business practices that shift rights from the author or song writer to companies are the reason that artists do not get paid, he added. A fair regime would protect artists as well as the corporate side, he added.

Copyright has "shown itself for what it truly is," said Kienda Hoji, an entertainment lawyer and senior lecturer at the University of Westminster. It is a system that benefits those who want to make money, not the creators who deserve to, he said.
Of course, that's been true for... well... about 300 years now. Isn't it about time something was done about it?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 1:24am

    == TECHDIRT ARTICLE SUMMARY FORM v1.0 ==

    Thanks for posting this informative article. For those who are too busy to read the actual article, its contents are summarized and categorized here for your convenience.

    Category 1: EVERYTHING ABOUT THE STATUS QUO SUCKS

    Lawyers are:
    [ ] Stupid [ ] Evil

    Judges are:
    [ ] Stupid [ ] Corrupt

    Politicians are :
    [ ] Stupid [ ] Incompetent [ ] Corrupt

    Government is:
    [ ] Stupid [ ] Corrupt [ ] Evil

    Corporations are:
    [ ] Stupid [X] Greedy [X] Evil [ ] Lazy

    Content creators/owners who do not give away their content are:
    [ ] Stupid [ ] Evil [ ] Greedy [ ] Lazy

    Laws and regulations are:
    [X] Unnecessary [ ] Retarding progress
    [X] Only there to serve their corporate masters
    [X] OUT OF CONTROL

    Lawsuits are:
    [ ] Unnecessary [ ] A waste of time

    The United States is:
    [ ] A bully

    Category 2: TECHDIRT MEMES

    [ ] Obviously ridiculous and exceptional action by random person or entity demonstrates that law/policy/etc. is OUT OF CONTROL.
    [ ] Ridiculous statement by someone marginally in position of influence demonstrates absurdity of entire area of law.
    [ ] DID YOU KNOW I COINED THE TERM STREISAND EFFECT?
    [ ] Successful celebrity/politician/etc. makes a statement that is {wrong, obviously ridiculous} demonstrating that "old model" success stories are hopelessly out-of-touch
    [ ] Profit directly from illegal actions of others is encouraged as long as it can be done with plausible deniability.
    [ ] Seemingly conflicting statements or actions in different contexts from different people in the same organization of thousands of people proves that said organization is a dirty hypocrite.
    [ ] RED LIGHT CAMERAS WHARRGARBL
    [ ] Laws in other countries are pretty wacky

    Category 3: POSITIVE STORIES (Rare)

    [X] A lawyer/politician/judge/celebrity, exceptionally, got something right
    [ ] Somebody made some money by giving their stuff away for free
    [X] Story includes caveat that, while this is a good thing, it should not be construed as an indication that the status quo is anything but hopelessly broken
    [ ] Story includes note that even though this is a good thing, they could have done it better in some way
    [ ] Story includes caveat that this might not work for anybody else, but "it's an interesting experiment"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    BruceLD, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 1:41am

    Subject

    Don't forget the lawyers are the true artists. CON ARTISTS. They conned the music corporations out of hundreds of millions of dollars. I wonder why the RIAA isn't suing the lawyers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 1:45am

    Re:

    "Obviously ridiculous and exceptional action by random person or entity demonstrates that law/policy/etc. is OUT OF CONTROL."

    You mean like when Congress takes obviously ridiculous and non exceptional action by passing ridiculous laws like 95+ year copy protections? Such laws are out of control. In fact there are so many out of control laws it's not even worth listing them all since we've practically gone through many of them already.

    "Ridiculous statement by someone marginally in position of influence demonstrates absurdity of entire area of law."

    Strawman alert.

    "Seemingly conflicting statements or actions in different contexts from different people in the same organization of thousands of people proves that said organization is a dirty hypocrite."

    More strawman?

    "DID YOU KNOW I COINED THE TERM STREISAND EFFECT?"

    TAM: Did you know I'm a stupid moron? Really, I am. I have nothing reasonable to contribute, just my temper tantrums. WAAAA, I want my bottle. Where is my pacifier. Mike, I'm going to tell my mommy on you.

    "Profit directly from illegal actions of others is encouraged as long as it can be done with plausible deniability."

    Where did Mike ever encourage such a thing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 2:08am

    Re:

    == TECHDIRT ARTICLE SUMMARY FORM v1.0 ==
    == Simplified Troll Interpretation Edition ==

    There, You forgot the sub-title. I took the liberty of fixing that for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 2:17am

    Re:

    Just because you can make a list it doesn't mean that the contents of the list are incorrect.

    See
    "The Ten Commandments"
    "Newton's Three Laws"
    "The three laws of thermodynamics"

    Plus you missed one off:

    "Anonymous Cowards who write gratuitously opposing comments without any real substance are:
    [ ]Morons
    [ ]Being paid by Big Content
    [ ]Deliberately being stupid to make that side of the argument look bad."

    Wich box should I mark for you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 2:33am

    Re: Re:

    You forgot "All of the above"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 2:44am

    Copyright must die!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 3:09am

    Isn't it about time something was done about it?

    Yes, and the solution is simple: limit those who skim off the excess value of labor with steeply progressive income tax rates. Oddly, seems that's not a solution that either the list maker or Mike favor.

    It matters *where* your income is from. Middle-men are just short of thieves whether it's skimming off musicians or manufacturers: they don't *produce* goods, only pass them on to those who *purchase* them, and for the amazing feat of this transport, collect *most* of the profit. Those who regard only economics as relevant of course fail to grasp the essential immorality of these middle-men, and indeed, may extoll them as performing a vital role in the economy. -- No, middle-men are at best overhead in the distribution chain.

    Retail and studios are an outdated model based on scarcity of goods and more importantly, a delivery system. Sears-Roebuck simply wasn't possible before the Postal Service had adequate facilities, therefore its success was *subsidized* by gov't funded basic structure. The degree to which gov't subsidizes transport services seems lost on those who so take it for granted as to expect unlimited subsidized services for a fixed price.

    The proposed steeply progressive tax rate would affect only those who end up skimming a great deal from society: the upper 1% as the income tax was originally implemented. You can find how much those fiends get and have of the wealth created by others elsewhere. I'd prefer this to be a simple and utterly fair test of 100% tax rate above $10 million a year income from *any* source, ZERO below that, and so I doubt it will affect *you*. -- Though regressive sales taxes will. Those should be lifted, but taxing The Rich is a necessary first step.

    The Rich have proven themselves efficient *only* at effectively skimming from workers through various machinations, and we merely need to utilize their abilities for public good, not private evils. High taxes on The Rich will automatically limit their efforts, and we'll get a more than doubled benefit. That's how the system worked in the 60's, when both tax rates and industrial production were *high*, and it'll work so again despite the looting of our industrial base. All history shows that if the rest of us don't keep *some* limits on The Rich, they *always* ruin societies through greed and evil.

    Practical problem is that all Americans think that they're rich, or soon will be, and so oppose implementing high rates in order to keep a limit on The Rich. That's just a matter of education. When people have the facts in view, opinions change.

    George Washington said (perhaps not exact): "The Rich have as clear and sacred a right to their large property as others have to theirs which is smaller." -- That's true -- assuming lawfully gained -- but note that's *property*, not *money*. The latter is a *social* product, a means of exchanging *labor*. But The Rich have twisted this concept into money being an *entitlement* for them, and an *obligation* on the working class. The Rich expect you to labor for them in exchange for mere pieces of paper (or numbers in a computer account), with which you can then demand the products and services of your fellow workers! In this system, The Rich *never* put anything in, but only take from workers who support themselves and The Rich. It's no wonder that those already "vested" (another feudal term) in this system that they call "capitalism" think it's great! But they're getting out of control and moving to limit *your* opportunities, besides income.

    So, that's a start on your "something" to be done, Mike. Take up the banner of worker's rights, instead of finding ways for petty grifters to skim from the current system. It's in your interest and of all who labor or create to do so, because otherwise, The Rich are going to gain total over control over even powerful web-site operators.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 4:10am

    Re:

    Yeah we get it, you spent a few days in your little hole coming up with that so now you have to use it in every comment thread...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 5:00am

    Re: Subject

    Wouldn't they have to use lawyers then?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Nathan Vegdahl (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 5:07am

    Re:

    I like how the idea that Mike is consistent in the views he puts forth has now become a point of ridicule.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 5:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You forgot "All of the above"

    I thought about that - but the third one doesn't really fit with the other two..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 5:20am

    pointing at copyright as the issue is sort of missing the point. copyright is just a tool, a method, a construct for handing non-physical property.

    the issue is how that property is bought and sold "wholesale", which in turn changes how it is bought and sold retail.

    these guys are looking at a pile of dog sh-t, and seem to think the solution to those unsightly piles is to sew the dogs butt closed. that would be a very, very short term solution, because it doesnt consider how the rest of the system works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 5:45am

    Re: Isn't it about time something was done about it?

    I think you have some good points here and some that don't seem right instinctively.

    However:
    The "capitalist" line has always been that you need pay that is linked to the performance of the organisation in order to provide incentives. BUT the recent post here about incentives suggests that this is not true - pay simply needs to be adequate to make it non-controversial. Maybe the only incentive that real innovators need is seeing their ideas carried out in practice. Then we can pay people according to what they actually do - and perhaps the most unpleasant jobs will have to be the best paid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 5:53am

    Re:

    pointing at copyright as the issue is sort of missing the point. copyright is just a tool, a method, a construct for handing non-physical property.

    the issue is how that property is bought and sold "wholesale", which in turn changes how it is bought and sold retail.


    Copyright is more than a tool for handling non-physical property - rather it is the mechanism that allows such property to exist in the first place.

    Without copyright the creation of music, movies, books etc would have to be funded upfront. There is no reason why this can't happen - beyond the habits of thought that most of us have acquired over the 300 year history of copyright.

    Love you dog metaphor - not sure how it actually applies here though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 6:09am

    Re: Re:

    "Without copyright the creation of music, movies, books etc would have to be funded upfront. " - without copyright, that is less likely to happen, because the potential for return is nul. so instead of creating more content in the long run you create less of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re: Isn't it about time something was done about it?

    Yes, but there's a non-linearity in the system that's the true problem, and simply put, it's that The Rich effectively *own* the entire system. To *be* rich means *never* having to *compete*, never lacking for anything material, servants to do their bidding, complete freedom that extends to literally being above the law, so any incentive is irrelevant to them.
    -- I could dilate, but The Rich isn't topical to middle-men.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 6:37am

    Re: Re: "have to be funded upfront"

    I'm reminded that a couple hundred years ago, "content creation" was funded upfront by The Rich, and I think that's a practical goal for a form of social subsidy: just call yourself an "artist" and collect an "entitlement" on that basis. We'd rely on honesty, but in any case, it'd be mere subsistence level.

    Oh, no! That's socialism! People getting something for nothing! Freeloading off society! -- But that's *EXACTLY* what The Rich do, only at incredible levels! There's no *practical* difference between a trust fund, and welfare, *except* for the level, both are just living off those who *Iabor* -- and the lack of social stigma for living high off a trust fund. Anyone who's horrified by the welfare system should proportionally *more* despise The Rich.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 6:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    without copyright, that is less likely to happen, because the potential for return is nul. so instead of creating more content in the long run you create less of it.

    Incorrect inference. You are assuming that the funding will be done only by creators, their agents, or speculative investors interested mostly in financial return. However there is no reason (other than habits of thought and lack of imagination) why this funding cannot be done directly by those who simply want the work to exist.

    This is happening already (see kickstarter for examples) and it will happen more often in future. Your arguments are based on venal assumptions - ie no one ever does anything except for money and are designed to create opportunities for middlemen to cream off money from creators and from the public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re: Re: "have to be funded upfront"

    I'm reminded that a couple hundred years ago, "content creation" was funded upfront by The Rich,

    These days - with much better communication tools it is possible for the ordinary man to fund creation - by pooling resources - so the rich are no longer necessary for this role.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You forgot both A and B.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 7:49am

    Re:

    I personally like these things. They really sum up the responses that we will get from the trolls and shills that attack these articles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ars gratia artis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:12am

    Re:

    LOL ... dude you have to much time on your hands ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    TPBer, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:26am

    Re: hats, sunglasses, bikinis, watch,t-shirts, belts and jeans 4BIZ

    Please shut this Moron up

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    koos (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:39am

    HOW MANY RIGHTS CAN YOU LOSE?

    If you are a famous pop star, fans want your autograph. I you want to become one, others want your signature: recording companies, collecting societies like PRS and ASCAP, music publishers, managers. Before you know it you haven’t got anything left but your underwear.
    Copyright gives an author the final say in the use of his compositions and lyrics. He may grant permission to make his creations public or to reproduce them. For this, he may demand a remuneration. More specific, these are the rights:
    - Performance rights
    The right to perform means that you can let a public hear your songs. Before a live audience or by radio, television and the internet.
    - Recording and reproduction
    This rights means that you can record your songs on sound carriers like cd or dvd and make copies of them.
    There are also rights stemming from these rights:
    - Music publishing
    Originally, this was about sheet music. Nowadays music publishers engage in promoting artists.
    - Mastering
    Mastering is completing a mix and improving the sound. This is a special form o the right to record, sometimes part of contracts with record companies.
    - License
    This means that you grant a right to use your songs to a company that takes care of your exploitation. You are still the main rights holder. Most of the time this is about stock music. This music is specially made for movies, television series and commercials.
    - Distribution
    Distributions rights are given to record stores, like Tower Records.
    - Synchronization
    Synchronization in a recording contract is when the recording artist's music is synchronized to a video: music video, movie, television, commercial, etc.
    - The right to have income from concerts and merchandising
    This has got nothing to do with copyright. Every artist earns money by gigs or selling T-shirts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:48am

    Mike,

    I thought the recurring complaint on Techdirt was that copyright wasn't designed primarily to benefit the author. Is the complaint now that it doesn't serve the author enough?

    And isn't copyright doing its job? It seems to me that authors are all producing plenty of works. Whether or not an author has contracted/licensed away his rights has little to do with whether or not the works are benefiting the public, right? How are middlemen interfering with copyright's aim?

    If authors weren't being stimulated by copyright to create their works, then why are they choosing to copyright their works? They don't have to copyright their works, right? But they choose to.

    And didn't the Statute of Anne seek to break up a publishers' monopoly by offering, as an alternative, an author's monopoly of limited duration?

    I think you misunderstand the Statute of Anne: "Probably the only feature of the Statute of Anne that pleased the booksellers was the grandfather clause that continued the old copyrights — the stationers' copyrights — for a period of twenty-one years. Otherwise, the statute was designed to destroy the booksellers' monopoly of the booktrade and to prevent its recurrence. Thus, the statute provided for a highly sophisticated copyright that made the author the initial owner of copyright (relegating booksellers to the statute of assignees), made the creation of a new work a condition for copyright, and limited the term of copyright — formerly perpetual—to two terms of fourteen years each." 47 Journal of the Copyright Society 365.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:49am

    Re:

    That was pretty funny. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Tonsotunez (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:57am

    Copyright Serves Creators

    Copyright is all about choice for creators ... Under the law creators own their copyrights from the moment they create them and can do anything they please with them.

    With all of the new technologies creators can easily avoid middlemen if they so choose and assume all of the responsibilities and take advantage of all of the opportunities traditionally handled by middlemen.

    The copyright law was written to set forth creator's rights and give them optimum choice. It should not be changed now that they can more easily exercise their choices.

    What needs to happen is that those that love what creators create need to understand and respect creator's rights so creators can thrive and consumers can continue to enjoy the fruits of their creations.

    What the public also needs to understand going forward is that a partnership between creators and consumers is how the world has to work if our culture and humanity is to continue to expand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Bill Rosenblatt, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 9:10am

    Re: TECHDIRT ARTICLE SUMMARY FORM v1.0

    Thank you so much for expressing what I have felt about this blog so succinctly, whoever you are.

    Here is a suggested additional category:

    Category 4: ANALYSIS
    [] Based on cherry-picked intel selected to support desired conclusion
    [] Rehashes of received wisdom
    [] Theories based on lack of knowledge of subject matter

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    bob, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 9:27am

    Great.

    You forgot to include some line saying:

    People who don't agree with the article:
    [ * ] Don't realize they've been debunked and redebunked.
    [ * ] Just trolls.
    [ *] Don't get it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    bob, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 9:29am

    What about middle men like "TechDirt" or "newser"?

    Normally I hate middlemen too, but then I like some kind of middlemen. People like Mike, for instance, provide a valuable service by cutting out the most important news from an article and saving us from looking at the ads that feed the real reporters. He's a kind of middleman that "gets it", just like Google News and Newser. We've got to keep the good and bad middlemen straight here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Bill Rosenblatt, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 9:43am

    Re: Great.

    For the record, I sometimes agree with Mike Masnick's conclusions. That doesn't mean I don't think his writing is smug, lazy, biased, under-informed, and/or more than one of the above. It is entertaining, though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 10:45am

    Re: What about middle men like "TechDirt" or "newser"?

    Keep trying bob. Maybe you'll eventually reach level TAM.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re:

    "Yeah we get it, you spent a few days in your little hole coming up with that so now you have to use it in every comment thread..."

    Thankfully it's quicker to write greasemonkey scripts to block that sort of crap than it is to write/post it. Plus, they can be shared!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Krzysztof Wiszniewski, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 3:14pm

    Mike, Mike, will you ever learn?

    Given that copyright is the only thing that keeps the middlemen from cutting the creator out of the picture altogether - as your beloved, forward-thinking file-sharers and the businesses who profit from them are doing as we speak - you've either got blinkers on or a lot of nerve.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Mike, Mike, will you ever learn?

    Given that copyright is the only thing that keeps the middlemen from cutting the creator out of the picture altogether - as your beloved, forward-thinking file-sharers and the businesses who profit from them are doing as we speak - you've either got blinkers on or a lot of nerve.

    You did notice I was quoting others, right?

    Shoot the messenger, much?

    But, as for the substance of your comment, this is wrong. If you're relying on copyright to avoid being "cut out of the picture," you're doing it wrong. Seriously. If you're so easy to replace that you need copyright to stop it, you've made a big, big mistake.

    We've discussed tons of business models that work great without copyright, and none of those people are "cut out of the picture altogether" by middlemen. Instead, they all appear to be making a lot more money than when they dealt with middlemen.

    So, yeah. You're wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Krzysztof , Krzysztof, will you ever learn?

    Given that copyright is the only thing that keeps the middlemen from cutting the creator out of the picture altogether...

    Given that you claim this without any supporting evidence whatsoever ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Still, that IS what happened for thousands of years before copyright existed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jul 16th, 2010 @ 8:56pm

    Re: Copyright Serves Creators

    (from the altar) "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; copyright with out end, Amen."

    (With apologies to the Book of Common Prayer.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2010 @ 10:20pm

    Re: Re: Great.

    Unsurprising, given your expertise in doomed-to-fail technology.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    tonsotunez, Jul 18th, 2010 @ 9:37am

    Business Models That Work Great Without Copyright

    Mikey writes: "We've discussed tons of business models that work great without copyright..."

    You've NEVER discussed a SINGLE model on this list that works without copyright.

    Copyright is the legal (and moral) foundation that grants creators the right to do whatever THEY want with their creations... including giving them away for free if THEY so chose.

    What you have suggested over, and over, and over, and over again is that creators be FORCED to give up their rights.

    You want copyright decimated so creators are defenseless. You don't want them to be able to fight back against the NEW middlemen (i.e. the builders of new technologies) who have proven time and time again that they are willing to rape creators to make billions... You know, the Googles, Pirate Bays, and Limewires of the world...

    People like you, Larry Lessig, the EFF, Public Knowledge and the Marxist professors at Stanford and Harvard are using the smoke screen of the 'evil corporate middlemen' to achieve your goals of destroying creator's rights ... and, quite frankly, you are very effective... but, those you will screw - more than the professional creators you obviously despise - are consumers - who, after sucking the last 100 years of spectacular entertainment into their computers without paying, will wake up one morning to discover that there is very little new that really interests them because those that would have produced it will have been forced to chose careers other than being creative to feed their families ...

    Keep supporting the NEW evil middlemen, Mikey, and let mediocrity reign.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Nick Dynice (profile), Jul 18th, 2010 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Business Models That Work Great Without Copyright

    Why is it the motive of these organizations to destroy creator's rights? What do they have to gain? It is not that they want everything for free. That is such a lame, cop out excuse. They just don't want evil corps. to screw over consumers and artists. They just want things to be more efficient, and that means creating more small and sustainable business. There is no reason to continue to support the huge disparity between the rich and the poor. The poor have every right to fight back and defend their positions.

    Just like there is no reason to defend the protections actions of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, or The Fed. It is not "too big to fail" it's "too much power to exist." Sometimes power becomes so big and concentrated the people need tear it down a bit so it does not have as much power.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 18th, 2010 @ 10:22pm

    Re: Business Models That Work Great Without Copyright

    You've NEVER discussed a SINGLE model on this list that works without copyright.

    Um. Actually, we've discussed tons. How could you possibly say otherwise?

    Copyright is the legal (and moral) foundation that grants creators the right to do whatever THEY want with their creations... including giving them away for free if THEY so chose.

    In the US it is purely a legal foundation, not moral at all. And yes, it allows people to give away their work for free. But that doesn't change the original statement that we've shown tons of business models that do not rely on copyright. Hell, our own business model does not rely on copyright.

    What you have suggested over, and over, and over, and over again is that creators be FORCED to give up their rights.

    I've said no such thing. I have never made such a claim at all. I am simply saying that the factors in the market have changed. And that there are good business models without copyright, so this shouldn't be a problem. I'm not the one changing the market. Don't blame the messenger.

    You want copyright decimated so creators are defenseless.

    Bullshit. I work with a lot of content creators, and want what's best for content creators. I have no desire to leave them "defenseless." Which is why I help them come up with good business models that *work* with or without copyright.

    You don't want them to be able to fight back against the NEW middlemen (i.e. the builders of new technologies) who have proven time and time again that they are willing to rape creators to make billions... You know, the Googles, Pirate Bays, and Limewires of the world...

    If that were true, why would I work so closely with content creators to help them earn money?

    People like you, Larry Lessig, the EFF, Public Knowledge and the Marxist professors at Stanford and Harvard are using the smoke screen of the 'evil corporate middlemen' to achieve your goals of destroying creator's rights

    Why? Seriously? Who would purposely want to destroy creators' rights?

    but, those you will screw - more than the professional creators you obviously despise - are consumers - who, after sucking the last 100 years of spectacular entertainment into their computers without paying, will wake up one morning to discover that there is very little new that really interests them because those that would have produced it will have been forced to chose careers other than being creative to feed their families ...

    Again, we spend so much time helping more artists make more money that it's, frankly, offensive for you to imply that we're harming content creators.

    And, considering that we're seeing more artists make more money, I'm at a complete loss as to how you can possibly claim that there will be less creative works.

    Time to wake up, kiddo. It's a different world and it's leaving you behind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Tonsotunez (profile), Jul 21st, 2010 @ 10:37pm

    Re: Re: Business Models That Work Great Without Copyright

    Mike: The songwriters you've helped are?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This