Ed Sheeran, Once Again, Demonstrates How Modern Copyright Is Destroying, Rather Than Helping Musicians
from the copyrighting-out-loud dept
To hear the recording industry tell the story, copyright is the only thing protecting musicians from poverty and despair. Of course, that’s always been a myth. Copyright was designed to benefit the middlemen and gatekeepers, such as the record labels, over the artists themselves. That’s why the labels have a long history of never paying artists.
But over the last few years, Ed Sheeran has been highlighting the ways in which (beyond the “who gets paid” aspect of all of this) modern copyright is stifling rather than incentivizing music creation — directly in contrast to what we’re told it’s supposed to be doing.
We’ve talked about Sheeran before, as he’s been sued repeatedly by people claiming that his songs sound too much like other songs. Sheeran has always taken a much more open approach to copyright and music, noting that kids pirating his music is how he became famous in the first place. He’s also stood up for kids who had accounts shut down via copyright claims for playing his music.
But the lawsuits have been where he’s really highlighted the absurdity of modern copyright law. After winning one of the lawsuits a year ago, he put out a heartfelt statement on how ridiculous the whole thing was. A key part:
There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify—that’s 22 million songs a year—and there’s only 12 notes that are available.
In the aftermath of this, Sheeran has said that he’s now filming all of his recent songwriting sessions, just in case he needs to provide evidence that he and his songwriting partners came up with a song on their own, which is depressing in its own right.
In the latest case, which just concluded last week, Sheeran said that if he lost he’d probably quit music altogether, as it’s just not worth it.
…when asked what he would do if the court ruled against him, Sheeran said, “If that happens, I’m done. I’m stopping… To have someone come in and say, ‘We don’t believe you, you must have stole it’… [I] find insulting…”
He went on, “I find it really insulting to work my whole life as a singer-songwriter and diminish it.”
Doesn’t seem like copyright helping to create incentives for new works, does it? It sure sounds like copyright stifling creativity and artistry. Elsewhere, he’s noted similar things, talking about how songwriters know there are only so many notes, and certain songs are going to sound somewhat similar to one another. He notes that actual songwriters all seem to get this.
“I feel like in the songwriting community, everyone sort of knows that there’s four chords primarily that are used and there’s eight notes. And we work with what we’ve got, with doing that.”
[….]
“I had a song that I wrote for Keith Urban, and it sort of sounded like a Coldplay song,” Sheeran added, referring the country singer’s 2018 record “Parallel Line.” “So I emailed Chris Martin and I said, ‘This sounds like your tune. Can we clear it?’ And he went, ‘Don’t be ridiculous. No.’”
He added: “And on the song I made sure they put, ‘I think it sounds like “Everglow,” Coldplay.’ But he was just like, ‘Nah, I know how songs are written. And I know you didn’t go into the studio and go, I want to write this.’”
Of course, with this latest lawsuit it wasn’t actually a songwriter suing. It was a private equity firm that had purchased the rights from one of the songwriters (not Marvin Gaye) of Marvin Gaye’s hit song “Let’s Get it On.”
The claim over Thinking Out Loud was originally lodged in 2018, not by Gaye’s family but by investment banker David Pullman and a company called Structured Asset Sales, which has acquired a portion of the estate of Let’s Get It On co-writer Ed Townsend.
Thankfully, Sheeran won the case as the jury sided with him over Structured Asset Sales. Sheeran, once again, used the attention to highlight just how broken copyright is if these lawsuits are what’s coming out of it:
“I’m obviously very happy with the outcome of the case, and it looks like I’m not having to retire from my day job after all. But at the same time I’m unbelievably frustrated that baseless claims like this are able to go to court.
“We’ve spent the last eight years talking about two songs with dramatically different lyrics, melodies, and four chords which are also different, and used by songwriters every day all over the world. These chords are common building blocks used long before Let’s Get it On was written, and will be used to make music long after we’re all gone.
“They are in a songwriters’ alphabet, our toolkit, and should be there for all of us to use. No one owns them or the way that they are played, in the same way that no one owns the color blue.”
He concluded the speech by saying he would never allow himself to be a “piggybank for anyone to shake.”
Good for him, though one hopes he’ll also help push for better copyright laws that would stop this kind of nonsense, and help lead to a broader rethinking of copyright in our time.
And… apparently, right after winning, Sheeran released his latest album (Subtract) based on a bunch of other challenges and traumatic experiences he’s gone through recently. It’s unfortunate that bogus copyright trials leading him to consider dropping out of the music world entirely added to the trauma.
Filed Under: copyright, creativing, ed sheeran, ed townsend, incentives, marvin gaye, songwriting
Companies: structured asset sales


Comments on “Ed Sheeran, Once Again, Demonstrates How Modern Copyright Is Destroying, Rather Than Helping Musicians”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Pros and Cons of Ed Sheeran's Retirement due to Lawsuit
Pros: Don’t have to be subjected to Shape Of You on the radio ever again.
Cons: Independent artists get destroyed by record labels.
I can’t decide which is worse.
Re:
Why would anyone retiring change what is getting airplay? So yeah, not a real decision to be made there.
Re: Re:
Well, The KLF famously deleted their back catalog when they retired from the music industry, so there is precedent.
Re: Re: Re:
A bunch of that is now available again, including streaming, and that didn’t affect physical copies already owned by people.
People can remove whatever they want from sale whenever they want, and they can tell radio stations not to play it. They just can’t whine about lost sales if they’re still pirated.
ChatGPT will be able to construct better music very soon, if not already.
Re: Not broken, just not properly used
Get Chat GPT to write exery combination of lyrics, notes and chord progressions possible, exclude the existing ones and copyright them all. Sue all the infringements, sit back and watch the money roll in.
Re: Re:
Nothing generated by ChatGPT is copywritable.
Re: Re: too many
That’s more combinations than there are atoms in the universe. By a lot.
Re: Re: Re:
Combined with lyrics? Yes. But, the combinations of notes is more doable, especially if you stick with the ones that actually sound good. That’s why a lot of pop music sounds similar or is ripe for spoofing as in Axis Of Awesome’s Four Chord Song – people independently make superficially similar sounding stuff because it’s what sounds good in the pop format. If every “good” combination of notes isn’t already recorded somewhere, it’s by chance, not because nobody tried it before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
Re:
ChatGPT will be able to construct music very soon.
If better or not, it’s a complex thing to evaluate.
I’ve got a burden of 40 years of listening music on my shoulders and I had the uneasy feeling of “something I’ve already heard somewhere else” much before than ChatGPT.
More or less, from about mid of the Nineties, precisely. From then on, it was all a fucking “endless revival”.
Let’s say honesty – said by Sheeran too but I was telling it so long before him – that if there’s no more convenience at all in writing music, simply songwriters will stop writing music and start doing something else.
Like I (and not just me) already did.
It’s not something going to happen in the future: it already started to happen.
Re: Re:
If it’s been written down but is not copyrightable, then it must be public domain. All of it.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s not just if it’s copyrightable or not. Copyright, after all, is just a part of a musician’s earnings. But it’s an important part in the beginning of a musical career: I can’t sell merchandising, even though it’s a cool stuff, when nobody knows me. And, as a musician, I’d love that people would rather know me for my music rather than for nice T-shirts.
It’s a matter of being profitable. At least enough for me to live with money made making my music.
This “I wanna listen to music for free” fashion must come to an end, at least if we want to keep on listening to Music as a Form of Art instead of a disposable mass product.
I guess you don’t like to work for free. So why should I?
The least that an artist would like is living with money earned by working on his/her art. If money is not enough to make you live, then you turn into doing something else. Simple and clear!
If this is what we really want, it’s OK: we are already doing this. If this is NOT what we really want, well, we must find a way to turn the tide before it’s too late!
Re:
Better according to whom? By what metric? And why? Art isn’t a race towards a platonic ideal, a competition to create the song to end all songs, but an act of human expression. Even the most mass-produced music, music made by a hundred writers and producers and focus groups and designed specifically to top charts, contains something personal to the artist, some specific cultural context that enabled its existence — some emotional undercurrent. AI feels no creative impulse; it generates content according to complex statistical models. Good for writing a ditty, maybe a decent tool for songwriters to get fresh inspiration, but not much else. I wonder what music these AI prophets listen to. What do they get out of it? Have they ever heard a song and felt something? Have they ever watched human beings perform and listen to music and share joy with each other?
Copyright arose because the means of publishing was limited, rather than the works seeking publication. The internet has removed the limitation on the means of publishing, so why is copyright being used to limit the creation of new works by expanding its scope. For songs, It would be reasonable to remove the tune from copyright protection, or at least weaken its protection, leaving the words protected.
Re:
Because over time, companies saw a more useful usage for it.
Re: Re:
Arguably, companies already knew the value of copyright, shortly after it was created.
Wikipedia, History of copyright
Re: Re: Re:
It gets worse when you realize that the precursor to the Statute of Anne was meant to enforce a monopoly on publishing, with a useful secondary benefit of enforcing censorship.
I present Axis of Awesome – 4 Four Chord Song (with song titles)
Re:
14 Songs That ‘Rip Off’ Classical Music
Re:
I’m very lazy to actually login to comment but this blew my mind. I wonder who gets to sue who in that video..
On a side note: TechDirt please let us comment logged out by adding the registered email and then claim the comments later when logged in… I dunno why this option was deprecated..
Our client is suing because we own the whole feeling of,
boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back.
All of these films are infringing on the feeling of our copyright.
I make this insane example, and even as I am typing it as an example of something so outrageous it could never happen I expect the lawsuit filed next fscking week, because a lawsuit like this shouldn’t make it onto the docket.
There are only so many basic plots movies use & people would balk loudly at one writer (or Vulture Capitol Group) claiming that everyone owes them money for stealing the basic plot. Copyright is about the characters, events, setting created but no one is dumb enough (yet) to claim they own man vs nature, nature vs man, man vs man, man vs god, god vs man because that element was in their thing too.
Copyright doesn’t cover a feeling because if someone spent enough time they would find the song that had the feeling stolen by the newer song, and the endless line of music building on music as the feel was “stolen” and reworked through time. Of course people don’t seem to understand this these days, because our entire culture has been locked up with a price tag on it and daring to build upon it means they sue you out of existence to encourage those long dead to create new works to keep their heirs or vulture capitalist in the money for decades as they sue anyone tho used the word the as the 3rd word in a sentence.
Re:
You can say “fuck” here.
Re:
How an author trademarking the word “cocky” turned the romance novel industry inside out
“Some would call it trademark bullying.”
Re:
It’s too bad that creators (story-tellers) who need to defend themselves can’t defend themselves by calling Joseph Campbell as an expert witness.
Shark eat shark
I wonder how many chord sequences of “Let’s Get it On” are similar to chord sequences of songs that preceded “Let’s Get it On.”
Absent copyright reform perhaps the best we can hope for is that the suing rightsholders and their lawyers start eating one another.
Let’s say the writer of Song-A is successfully sued by the rightsholders of a preceding song, Song-B, because of a chord sequence similarity. On seeing this, the rightsholders of another preceding song, Song-C, sue the rightsholders of Song-B because of a similar chord sequence in Song-C, and when they succeed, the rightsholders of Song-C take most of the money the rightsholders of Song-B won from the writer of Song-A, plus a big chunk of any copyright income from Song-B as well. That’s
and there’s still the rightsholders of Song-D, Song-E, etc. ready to keep on fighting over the scraps.
A few cases like that and the rightsholders might start to think twice before suing over vague similarities.
Re:
Isn’t that basically why the RIAA basically sided against more copyright maximalism in the case of Led Zeppelin vs. Taurus because they realized that all their lawsuits would eat up their own industry and (more importantly to the RIAA) their profits?
Robin Thicke Blurred Lines Lawsuit
It would have helped if they had lost the Robin Thicke – Blurred Lines lawsuit. They never should have won that case and winning just pushed them and others to go after more people.
Re:
Except, I think I read somewhere that it was the estate of a co-writer of Gaye’s that sued, not the Gaye family themselves, as was the case with Blurred Lines. Either way, THIS Ed Sheeran case had the right results. Shame that Gaye’s family is getting royalties for Blurred Lines for (checking notes) doing absolutely nothing creative and filing a bogus copyright infringement lawsuit.
Re:
And the suit against Men At Work , in which they were found “guilty” of copyright infringement for referencing the melody to the Kookaburra song, in the refrain of Down Under .
Judges seem to be no better at understanding these copyright issues than any random Joe or Jane Average in the street.
I always think it’s funny how some people say “I thought of/built this thing so you can’t do anything like it unless you pay” somehow creates more competition
Where is my Tablet/Laptop that can also make calls so I only have to carry one device and a bluetooth headset?
Why doesn’t every car have 360 continous recording capabilities for video/audio and GPS?
Why is it that if you want glasses of any kind, there is basically only like 7 companies worldwide, and you are 95% likely to buy from Luxxotica at their stupidly high prices?
Why is it AMD/Intel? The other companies literally got prices out of the market due to copyright making it too expensive to experiment.
Without copyright as stupid as it is, there would be a LOT more competition because it would remove the idiotically high upfront cost of entry to nearly every market.
Re:
I realize your point still stands, but don’t you mean patents and not copyrights?
Re: Re:
I would think it’s a valid argument that patents are simply copyright aimed towards physical/technological items
but yeah 🙂 both are barriers, not incentives to entry in a market.
Re: Re: Re:
There are key differences, though.
-Patents are [still] opt-in; Copyright is opt-out.
-Patents last for a maximum of 20 years. Copyrights last for life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for a corporate work.
-Patents could be abandoned earlier than its maximum term. Copyrights could at one point but no longer can.
So no, Patents though extremely similar to Copyrights, hasn’t been twisted and perverted in the same way Copyright has thanks to the Berne Convention and 20-year retroactive term extensions (though with patents there is evergreening).
Re: Re:
There are also semiconductor mask rights, which look a lot like copyright. In the USA, they last 10 years and have only been around since 1984. Before that, anyone could just copy a circuit, as Ricoh did to create the 2A03 from the 6502 (except that they cut 5 lines to ensure it couldn’t execute patented instructions).
Re: Re: Re:
Ah. Now I know where the NES’s sound chip which I used to make a chiptune album comes from!
Re: Re: Re:2
Kind of. The 2A03 is a chip containing a CPU and a sound generator in one (along with some other functions). The CPU is a near-exact copy of the 6502, but I don’t believe the sound-related bits really “came from” anything prior.
So, if you treated it as just a “sound chip”, you may have been spoiling yourself a bit: 1980s sound programmers would’ve had to negotiate with logic and graphics programmers for CPU time. (The Super NES, by contrast, did have a separate sound chip, which could run code independently of the CPU. Made by Sony, oddly, being a remnant of the aborted Nintendo-Sony “Play Station” collaboration.)
Spider Robinson wrote "Melancholy Elephants" in 1982.
More musicians should be familiar with it.
http://spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
So what happens is someone sues a rich
,Popstar who has a big hit
no point in going to court against a poor indie musician who had a minor hit song
The situation is worse now that people can make music on laptops using cheap software and upload it to a music service before the web most musicians had to pay for studio time and sign up with a record company on a contract to release a song on cd or vinyl
It’s a mathematical certainty that many hit songs will have chord sequences that are similar to other songs
The web and cheap software has greatly increased the no of songs being released
We will probably see new powerful Ai apps where you can type prompts
eg compose song in the style of singer X eg 70s romantic love song in the style of Fleetwood Mac
You ll be able to compose music without any musical talent
Might as well start claiming individual letters of the alphabet
To the extent that copyright influences culture and creativity they grow and flourish in spite of copyright, not because of it.
Re:
Nothing says flourishing culture like yet another blue-eyed soul revival
how much
Does the Corp own?
they own the Whole facility to record and distribute, and CHARGE for each part, Separately.
What is/was apple paying to the Agencies? 35-50 cent Per song? Apple was selling For $1 each?
The Agency could point to the charge Per song and cover that 50 cents, pretty easy.
But who is getting the pennies left?
Every musician knows this is BS
As an old fart, and a folksinger and songwriter for decades, it used to be a compliment if you did a variation or a different arrangement or even a cover of somebody else’s tune. Every musician knows, as Sheeran says, there are very few chords and notes and rhythms in pop or folk or blues or even jazz music, and the whole point of a song is the unique energy and approach every musician brings. We all benefit and grow from passing music around, nobody loses, trying to own a chord progression is like trying to own the air we breathe.
Re:
So you are familiar with the copyright maximalist dream.
Re:
9 Songs That ‘Rip Off’ Other Songs
The reason I’m plastering the comment here with links from the same channel is that David Bennett (no relation, I hope) has a couple of dozen or so very watchable videos all making this point.
Musicians, like writers, are magpies, and ‘steal’ bits to make their own nests. Rarely, the theft is just too egregious to ignore. Mostly, it’s just a limit toolkit in a musical genre where most of the songs all share common themes and motifs to appeal to a similar audience.
And that’s perfectly fine!
Re:
And there’s a lot of songs that take a given scale, or part of a scale, and turn it into a melody. I give you “Joy to the world” aka “Joy to the whirled”, lyrics by Isaac Watts, melody by George Frideric Handel, arrangement by Lowell Mason, which is a basic major scale descending, with rhythmic enhancements, and Blondie’s Call Me’s chorus is a minor scale ascending. Not to forget, the scalewise motion of JS Bach’s “Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” is a common feature in Baroque music, and is mirrored by Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven, such that you could claim “Stairway to Heaven” infringes JS Bach’s and George Telemann’s and Antonio Vivaldi’s and etc’s, prior art … if you wished to paint yourself an irredeemable fool …
Re:
Its like folk musicians jamming in a pub. The singer names a song, and somebody asks what tune, and two or three other tunes are named, and they all use the same tune.
They are in a songwriters’ alphabet, our toolkit, and should be there for all of us to use. No one owns them or the way that they are played, in the same way that no one owns the color blue.”
Tell that to Anus Kapoor
Re:
Basically asking to free the musician’s toolkit is–shall I say it–asking for a right–to–repair for musicians? It sounds like the same thing for me…
Re:
As someone haughtily informed me on Reddit, Kapoor owns the exclusive right to use a particular pigment, specifically, Vanta Black.
Which is why Stuart Semple retaliated by refusing to sell Kapoor his Pinkest Pink pigment. In that link, you can find the entire silly controversy described in detail.
Re:
But what if it’s a super-intelligent shade of the colour blue?
Ed Sheeran didn’t copy Marvin Gaye… he copied a different soul song
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The funniest part of this is accusing EdSheeran of being creative, rather than a hack churning out pallid imitations of his predecessors.
Nothing has done more to convince me of copyright’s utility to artists than Mike’s bleating about it on Techdirt.
Re:
…said nobody mentally competent, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Without copyright Sheeran doesn’t have a career. Whichever megacorp spotted him doesn’t give him a record contract, they pay a couple of session musicians starvation wages to record higher-fidelity replicas of his songs, which they then put on Spotify, Youtube, etc. Assuming Spotify doesn’t cut out the middleman and do it themselves. They can even slap his name & face on their versions, because what is he going to do, sue them?
Same goes for any act currently performing for more than drinks tickets and free entry.
Re: Re: Re:
They can even do that in the current © system with mechanical licenses. That’s how I was able to release my Genesis cover (on the Sega Genesis), Mama: https://ironcurtain.bandcamp.com/album/mama-feat-meiko
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve met any number of musos who make a living of sorts playing in pubs and minor venues, and even manage to travel the world. Of course, they rely on word of mouth. But reputation sells the tickets to their gigs, and they get plenty of help.
Re: Re: Re:2
Just what I always dreamed of, a living of sorts
Re: Re: Re:3
Making a living from their art is beyond most musicians, authors and other creative types. Just wander about the Internet to see how much creativity is out there, and how few creators make any form of living from their creativity. Self publishing means it is a lot more than it used to be, but gaining a big enough audience to make a living is still a difficult task.
Re: Re: Re:3
Someone should have told you that this is what most musicians can aspire to. There are some big winners, but there’s always been thousands of gigging musicians making a small living for every megastar that gets paid millions – and some of those never even made the money that they appeared to be making, they struggled to pay back their initial advances with the major label they signed to. MTV’s Cribs was fairly famous eventually for people renting mansions they’d never lived in and cars they’d never driven to show off for the cameras to push the myth of high living.
If you dreamed of making a living “of sorts” doing the thing you loved, you made a more achievable dream than anyone thinking they’d be emulating the life the their favourite pop stars appeared to be having. Even those stars often didn’t have the life portrayed in their labels’ advertisements.
Re: Re: Re:
You have that Inverted, without copyright what corporation is going to try and compete against the original artists and all the others making different versions of the music. An artist with a reputation on the other hand can attract and keep the Interest of a large enough fan base to make a living, if not a fortune.
Re: Re: Re:2
I thought the whole point of getting rid of copyright was that it would increase competition? Why would Sony, Warner and UMG not participate? They have established business relationships with distribution outlets, they have studios, they have A&R guys, they have marketing departments. Why would they decide not to use those baked in advantages to produce cheap, glossy versions of popular music that they can afford to advertise and distribute more widely than the original artists? The only change is that they would no longer need to pay the original artists a cut.
Re: Re: Re:3
Why would they not compete? Just listen to their moaning and groaning about how piracy is killing their business. I suspect that they include self publishers as pirates, and that their real complaint is about people making money without paying them the bulk of the Income.
They have frown fat by keeping the number of works available on the market down, so as to maximize the sales of those works, and have long ago forgotten about how to actually compete. When your business was based on being the only route to market, it is difficult to change to offering services to those who once had to beg you for a chance of selling their works.
Re: Re: Re:4
So they’ll just go away as soon as the Mike Masniak Copyright Sucks Act of 2024 is passed? Sigh heavily and bow their heads, muttering “It’s a fair cop, guv,” as they shutter their offices. Sure.
Re: Re: Re:5
Your alternative is to let them run roughshod over us because any resistance, even spoken, will be met by even more repercussions?
No thanks.
Re: Re: Re:3
It would, in the sense that not needing to fear that some asshole corp would sue you over a generic chord progression would convince more people to create music. Lower the barriers to entry, and that leads to more content being made. Of course, one drawback being claimed is that it leads to a lot more crap being made, but that’s entirely subjective.
And they could already do this with copyright systems in place. That’s hardly a secret.
Re:
How’s that Bayside Advisory defense fund coming along, bro?
Re: Re:
Yes, a shady company exploiting the law is definitely an argument that shady companies will not exploit the law.
Re: Re: Re:
Your team really knows how to pick the best and brightest to fight for copyright’s interests.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s a reminder of the horse you put your money on, and the hill you chose to die on in your mouth-frothing defense of copyright.
Re: Re: Re:2
Why does a company abusing copyright in an attempt to squash criticism have any bearing on whether musicians benefit from having control over their songs?
Re: Re: Re:3
Signing up to a label means giving them control over your songs.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s a sign that people should be wary about how copyright is used.
There was a point where copyright did not have the stain on its reputation the way it does now. There was maybe a time when casual copyright infringement would have had people on the side of record labels instead of the downloaders. But copyright holders chose to do stupid shit like chasing after innocent defendants based on crappy standards of evidence, and employ the likes of Prenda Law to protect their porn.
The Townsend estate could have made a case for less shitty copyright by simply not going after another artist based on non-copyrightable elements of music, in the same way that Bayside Advisory could have chosen not to abuse copyright law to stifle criticism. And yet, they did. Their actions gave the general public more of a reason to distrust copyright and intellectual property.
The bearing is that vested interests chose to abuse copyright law and end up making copyright worse for everyone involved.
Re: Re: Re:3
Why does Masnick reporting on copyright abuse convince you of copyright’s utility to artists?
Charles Berthoud has an excellent video on this
Charles Berthoud, an unbelievably talented musician and YouTube content creator, recently had a run-in with the Eagles because he covered one of their songs.
He does an amazing job of breaking down the issues in his response video. Imagine losing someone as supremely talented as him because of horrid copyright laws.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5n6Cn5Guqc
Re:
Oh no, the world may have lost another cover of Hotel California. The horror… the horror…
Re:
Welcome to capitalism.
He is, sadly, replaceable under capitalism as we know it.
Re: Re:
Except it is not really capitalism. Government created monopolies like Copyright is more like communism than capitalism. It’s about corporate welfare and creators welfare. Copyright is anti-free market and anti- property rights.
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose I should prepare to die to a corp hit squad then.
If copyright is abolished globally, if the corps don’t force me to “settle” (read: saddle me with enough debt that even my grandchildren could not pay off), I’ll be forced to “slave away” or be shot.
I’ve read enough cyberpunk to know the end result, you know.
And they’re already extorting money via lawyers NOW. For copyright infringements that can’t be proven in a court of law.
Re: Re: Re:2
You mean like the existing system that led to the Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum fines?
Elephants still so sad
See
Spider Robinson’s “Melancholy Elephants” from 1982
(perennially germane, always ignored)
“Don’t you see what perpetual copyright implies? It is perpetual racial memory!”
https://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm
Re:
Thanks.
1982, who knew.
I gave up telling wife her pop country music channel sounds the same no matter who is playing and singing. Her response – no it doesn’t.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Maybe if he were less of a hack and actually tried innovating rather than regurgitating music indistinguishable from stuff made fifty years ago he wouldn’t get sued so much
Re:
Maybe if you realize that music sounds almost exactly the same REGARDLESS of when it was made…
I suppose a dead composer’s estate suing everyone for ripping off their music should suffice. One from the 1700s or earlier.
Or perhaps a medieval bard’s estate might want to sue?
Re: Re:
Or perhaps the estate of a paleolithic where there is evidence of music being played, like flutes made from bird leg bones.
Re: Re:
Argument from philistinism. That’s a new one. Not especially persuasive though. I guess innovation isn’t all its cracked up to be.
Re: Re: Re:
Not the way you do it, no. Maybe you should’ve picked someone other than Bayside Advisory to get angry about copyright law’s best and brightest.
Re:
Said the person using words they didn’t invent, composed of letters they didn’t invent, on a site they didn’t create, using a browser they didn’t create.
If you want people to take that argument seriously then practice what you preach.
a limited copyright.
Copyright was not designed to benefit the middlemen and gatekeepers—despite how it may have turned out. Copyright was designed to benefit both creators and the public by allowing for a limited period of exclusivity for creators to exploit (ie make money from) their works, thereby 1) generating fodder for new creative works and 2) motivating creators to continue creating. That this limited period has unfortunately been extended to unreasonably long periods by paid corporate lobbyists and pliable lawmakers does not change the original intent.
Re:
That is a rather near term view of history. Before modern copyright, a form of copyright existed to censor and control the contents that could be printed. It happened that those copyright were issued to printer publishers, who found that they solved another problem of early printing, that of printing all the copies that a printer expected to sell before selling any copies. A ‘pirate’ run of say 1/4 of those copies, printed band sold just before the licensed copies were ready would likely leave the printer with unsold copies and a loss by not recouping the expenses put into the printing, especially labour as printing, folding and binding were manually intense processes.
When the English censorship version of copyright, that was literally a license to print, was repealed, the printers tried and failed to get a replacement law until after someone came up with the spin of making copyright an authors right, knowing full well that all an author could do with that right was sell it to a printer.
Then as now the primary movers behind copyright law are the middlemen, and not the creators making the works that they sell.
Re:
keeping creators alive to continue creating
fixed that for you
Copyright, as it works today, goes against how culture works starting with the terms (courtesy of Mickey Mouse). If you value the artists you abhor current copyright framework. They are mutually exclusive.
Re:
Mickey Mouse? You mean the character that first appeared in a movie that clearly riffed on the Buster Keaton movie Steamboat Bill Jr.?
Unfortunately...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/ed-sheeran-s-let-s-get-it-on-copyright-accusers-launch-appeal-to-overturn-his-trial-victory/ar-AA1c2N3u?ocid=AMZN
The accusers now launched a appeal to overturn his victory.
Honestly, I feel that if this continues much longer, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ed caved and settled with them just so he can get them off his back and retired like you said. (Though i’m not sure if the accusers actually wanted that.)