Most creators want their work seen by the public, and have very different motivations than corporations do. Certainly creators want to make a living, but no creator wants their work to be lost forever. A great many films have been lost forever because of physical reasons; current copyright law and corporate greed are leading to more of the same.
Corporations don't care if the work is ever seen again, the only consideration is if there will be a high enough return. If not, a corporation would let the work deteriorate in the vault; if freeed into the public domain it becomes competition.
Take it down the road... if this movie company wants to go to war with their fans, the fans can always walk away. I'd suggest thumbing your nose at "Let Me In" since they obviously don't appreciate their fans, instead moving over to the Facebook Die Beauty page.
Die Beauty is a movie that has been released under a Creative Commons License(by-nc-sa)via The Pirate Bay because they WANT the movie to be shared.
Oh and look, TechDirt has their own article about Die Beauty here. Surprised? I think not.
Look at that. Sounds like the new business model is getting a grip. Woo hoo!
Re: "Good luck recording, mixing, and mastering a full orchestra for $10,000"
It never ceases to amaze me how quick the knee-jerk "it can't be done because..." reaction comes out.
Everything has gotten cheaper. What Hollywood pays to record a soundtrack has traditionally been higher than what an Independent would. I know for a fact that it is possible to make a studio recording of a full length commercial quality CD with an 8 piece band for CDN$ 1,000. So $10,000 for an orchestra doesn't sound all that out of line. Particularly if you factor in the fact that many people would be willing to volunteer their services for such a good cause-- as we've already seen here.
Citizens are being asked to give up all control over Intellectual Property (IP) we've purchased. The manufacturer's rights over-rule ours as they limit or control our use of our own property through deployment of DRM or lawsuits for non-commercial personal sharing.
At the same time, we are being asked to give up all control over our own personal information up to and including body scans (call it personal privacy or PP).
Citizens are simply being asked to give up our rights.
Pulling it all together like this really helps drive it home.
(Probably why Anonymous Coward is trying to derail it.... I'm getting to the point of not counting AC's links and skipping AC's comments altogether)
Sadly most people still don't know that these things are going on. And the reason that they can do this is that the tech community is a "special interest group".
It isn't just the technology. What I wonder what great new art, books, music, movies won't be made, or if they are, Independent creators won't be able to be digitally disseminate their creations to their audience because these policies ultimately seek to take out p2p and/or remove all interactivity from the Internet.
good income source to songwriters and original artists? Good thing I wasn't drinking anything because that would surely have make it come out my nose.
The game has been rigged against the artists for quite some time. Mike doesn't HAVE to make it up. What you need to do is go out and find a real life songwriter or recording artist who is NOT a household word that makes more per year than the receptionist at the copyright collective. Hmm, that might be too tough. You might be able to do it for the janitor....
Copyright collectives seem to have gotten just as demented at the record labels.
At least Canada is "above" all this. Geographically if nothing else.
Since my government couldn't be bothered I made a submission as a private citizen from Canada, the land of snow and supposed piracy. And being a highly addicted blogger, I blogged it as well. And they still didn't listen.
Although it may feel the same to us beleaguered consumers, and although government mandated, in Canada a “levy” is not the same as a “tax”.
This is not just semantics:
“a “tax” needs to be accountable to the people paying it, and the amount is set by elected officials. In the case of these levies [they] are realistically only accountable to the collective societies and the amount is set by unelected commissioners on the copyright board.”
Gee Mark, Your first post certainly sounded like MAC in sheep's clothing, but when both comments are put together, it's entirely possible that you're MAC's smarter brother.... Whoever you are, you've done an excellent job of appearing to be reasonable in your copyright lecture, but you missed a few key points.
First: People don't buy music or any other type of art sight unseen. The only way to sell music or any other type of art is to allow people to see or hear it. DerekCurrie is absolutely right, and you are being disingenuous.
Next, copyright terms were originally finite -- long enough to sell to most of the people who would buy -- after which it would revert to public domain. The idea was to monetize the Intellectual Property careers for the talented so they weren't wasted on a day job. Copyright that ends after a reasonable period of time ensures the artist keeps creating more, and possibly even better works.
A rich culture benefits society, the creator gets to make a living. But that's not how it works anymore. Mark points out the biggest problem with today's copyright laws when he writes:
"Copyright is supposed to be an exclusive right of the copyright holder to copy his or her works."
Copyright has been assumed by all sorts of people and corporations who have not in fact created anything:
Some copyright holders are record companies who extorted copyright from the recording artists-- iIf the artist wanted to reach an audience they had no choice. Agreements made under duress didn't used to be legally binding.
Some copyright holders are corporations who happen to own companies that invested in a creative project.
Some copyright holders are heirs or assigns of the creator.
Some copyright holders are copyright collectives.
It's entirely possible that Google Books will end up controlling the digital rights to all American, Canadian and Australian copyright materials under the terms of the Google Books Settlement (the demented result of Google Books being charged with copyright infringement). Which would make Google Books one of the most powerful copyright holders in the world.
Some copyright holders are even creators.
The problem is that we are at a point where creators have the least amount of say over copyright. The priorities of creators are often not the same as the priorities of corporate copyright holders.
It doesn't matter to a corporation if the art is appreciated, only the bottom line matters. A corporation would rather not sell the audience what it wants today, so that it can demand higher prices tomorrow. If the corporation decides they can't make a large enough profit they may decide the creation will never be released again. Because of this, many copyright works are allowed to go "out of print".
Particularly today, when so much IP exists on impermanent media, there is a very real probability that a great deal of today's art will be lost forever rather than released into the public domain. Civilization loses when art is lost or destroyed.
In today's world the RIAA's third floor janitor probably makes more (and certainly steadier) income from the music industry than most recording artists.
For centuries creators have been paid next to nothing for their contribution to books and music, on the understanding that it was so expensive to manufacture this book or that vinyl disk.
But now, when we have known all along that a physical CD costs mere pennies, and digital distribution costs even less, the corporate copyright holders refuse to remunerate the creators more equitably.
So the RIAA and friends have lost all claim to any moral high ground, making your arguments specious.
First off let me qualify myself Mac, I'm the daughter of a singer/songwriter/musician/recording artist. I grew up in a very creative family. As a music industry flack you seem desperately in need of a little education about what you are selling.
Over the last 50 years or so an ever smaller group of record execs (fewer companies) decided who gets to record their music. Certainly not because record execs have any idea what will sell-- you guys understand marketing not art.
Creative people are traditionally easy to take advantage of because most truly creative people will create whether there is an income in it for them or not. Certainly there is an occasional exception (Madonna springs to mind). But the music business took advantage of this when it began to extort some or all of the copyright from the artists they sign. And artists signed so they could make art.
But really, what have the artists got out of this? Promotion? Distribution?
Whose money are record companies really gambling on promotion?
Although the record company appears to be paying the bills at the moment, they bill it all back to the artist or the act. The record company decides how much or how long to promote the artist. And when to turn off the tap.
The losers have been the acts who put in the effort but the record company did not make into stars. They pulled the plug before the big break. The middle earners who don't earn enough to live on themselves from their recording contacts that actually foot the bill for the record execs' Maseratis.
It is actually all those bites of pie extorted by the record company underwriting the big revenue stream. And the record companies have all the time in the world after all to recoup because they're working on making copyright last forever.
But now we have technology means that allows artists to distribute themselves and find their own audience. Artists no longer have to sell their souls to get recorded. That's why 30% of the Canadian Music Industry has already gone Independent.
Your industry has already shot itself in the foot trying to criminalize your customers instead of adapting and offering artists equitable deals. So you see, Mac, if the entertainment industry intends to survive, it needs stop putting so much time and money trying to legislate anti-progress, and adapt. Because the competition is growing.
If they don't, you'd be best off finding a new job.
ACTA seeks to enroll the entire world in the 20th century.
As NAMELESS.ONE says, the US is pushing ACTA under an executive order, and so doesn't require congressional ratification. Most Americans have no idea this is happening. And the ones that do, think that congress will be able to stop it if it really is so terrible.
So tell people. Sure, it doesn't have to be ratified by congress. But if there is enough of a noise about it it could still be stopped. With American citizens just getting their first idea of life in a world with DMCA takedowns the copyright issues are bound to start getting more traction.
If the entire world climbs aboard 1984 will be reality.
My sister coined the phrase "Stepford Children" to describe kids like Eddie Haskell who behave perfectly when they are being watched by authorities, and when they are not break every rule in the book.
If you don't trust children you create untrustworthy children. Who grow up into school administrators who think that external discipline is good.
This is wrong.
I understand the urge to pull your kids out of school so you can protect them but all that does is leave the rest of your kid's generation at risk. Fight these bad things if you can. Because if you don't, your kids will end up living in a world where this kind of shit is acceptable.
"What I said came out nothing like I meant," explained Urban. "I was referring to the old days when you'd buy a record, do a cassette tape and give it to your girlfriend, and then maybe she likes it and becomes a fan."
And copying the record you bought onto a cassette and giving it to someone is different from "illegal filesharing" how?
I'm no Mike Masnick, but I won't be linking to any New York Times articles either. Being still fairly new at blogging, I only recently realized that The Globe and Mail puts a paywall around older articles, leaving broken links in earlier posts. I've learned my lesson.
It's too bad, but of course part of it is that these are media outlets I will now use less of.
My biggest gripe is that an old friend from high school works on the NYT, so personally I'm a little disappointed that I won't be able to follow his career anymore. C'est la vie.
Sorry AC, I hate to break this to you but many things that no one pays for DO in fact exist. There was even a song.
We may pay to support our children, but we don't pay for them.
Rocks and trees and flowers actually existed long before your local garden center started selling them. No one has paid for the bunnies and squirrels and chipmunks in my neighborhood, but they certainly exist. And I certainly appreciate them.
If you're talking about human generated creations, well, years ago the only way people could have a hand stitched quilt was if they made it themselves or received it as a gift. Quilts were a useful thing created out of scraps. You certainly couldn't buy them in a store. Because of the great amount of work required in creating a quilt, quilters would gather together to create quilts for community members who needed them, and socialized in the process. It was a community effort.
Today, non-quilters pay hundreds of dollars for quilts. In some circles quilting is considered an art. Many of the most satisfying quilt patterns have existed for hundreds of years, and they are shared and improved on. You might evn say "remixed". Machine made knock offs exist but the quality just isn't the same. Still, I have yet to see quilters bring copyright infringement suits against anyone.
The open source movement has more in common with quilting community tradition than anything else I can think of.
The thing that makes it difficult to understand is that although art is work, it is not the same as labour.
Sorry I don't have time right now to explain it any better... I have to do some work for pay. Maybe I'll write a blog post explaining it sometime... for free... i don't even allow ads on my blog :)