Re: Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
we can still legally create indefinite creative commons works
Creative Commons is worse than copyright as it promotes the same kind of dangerous "permission culture" it purports to eliminate. It creates an entirely new thicket around terms like "attribution" and "noncommercial use" that are entirely unnecessary.
Once you release your content publicly, there is no control. That wasn't what copyright was about in the first place anyway, and it is completely unnecessary. Just look at this site, people can and do copy TechDirt all the time and I don't see them having any problems.
You may not even be able to sell the first release, if you mean a set number of copies sold on the day they become available.
No, the market for copies is significantly reduced, if not dead entirely. What I meant is what you describe later, selling the release recording itself for everybody to make copies of and share - buyers and non-buyers alike.
your model becomes one where you collect in advance rather than down the road.
There is nuance here. A good business model realizes that "money for art" is part of the "reasons to buy," not the reason. Sharing music for free is an excellent way to build your fanbase by letting your talent speak for itself, and the money required to make those recordings can be recouped even if the recording itself is never sold.
With technology the way it is, the cost to record a quality album is much lower, so I disagree that artists won't care about it. That assumes that the only incentive to make those recordings is to sell them directly. Again, there is nuance - a lousy recording isn't going to get shared, and when that is a significant way people find out about you, I think most if not all artists will want to do their best.
When you have more widespread publicity it's certainly possible to calculate how much it will cost to make an album, and raise the money Kickstarter-style to create it. But a good model will always include ways of continuing to give those fans reasons to buy - as we know, there is much more to sell than recordings.
Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
Abologists? I like that.
More and more we see copyright being abused, and I don't think it will be solved by softening the terms.
Keep in mind, however, that the best way to win this fight is to eliminate copyright not through law, but through obsolescence. The more people realize how much better a copyright-free business model works, the fewer people will feel the need to cling to it.
Yeah, I really don't think "Voluntary Collective Licensing" is any better (or really, that much different) than blank media levies. Granted, one of them is ostensibly voluntary, but aside from that, it's still buying into the idea that we should be paying for infinitely copyable digital files as though they're some kind of scarce physical object.
We need to move beyond the "pay for play" mentality and realize that once content is publicly released, it is part of culture that will be shared and built upon. Instead, consider selling just the very first release, and by all means set ways to give your fans reasons to buy.
Re: Re: Recording Industry Association of America's $1B court filing
That's a pretty insightful comment except for that last part. If your free music is poor quality and virus-ridden you're going to the wrong places. The value of paying "for music" has little to do with file quality and everything to do with other intangibles.
I know my university did this several times even before the legislation was passed. First there CDMagic (or something similarly named), when that fell apart the entire University System of Maryland signed a deal with Ruckus (remember that?). In both cases very, very few students were interested in the services, and all of that student money got wasted. What's frustrating is that the industry got the money regardless - a sunk cost for us, two consecutive payouts for them.
It's as though it doesn't matter whether the service is good or students use it - they just have to convince universities to sign deals so they can collect the money up front. How come we can't demand a refund?
Jesting aside, I think you make a good point. And without royalties and other tedious "rights" organizations, radio stations and other mainstream venues can rapidly jump on the popularity bandwagon. Those internet-famous artists (and, I believe, any artist) can more easily expand their reach when anybody, be it blogger or radio DJ, can play and share their music.
Why charge at all? I think the whole collection society mentality misses the entire point of music. It's this idea that because somebody or some business is getting a measure of value from your song, they owe you something.
I don't think this is true at all. Especially for the "poor, independent, unknown" artists we like to worry about, the benefit of having their song actually played and listened to is far more important than getting a payout.
Collection societies are all about shaking down small businesses for payments they can distribute to their own executives and a few major artists. Independents and smaller artists don't need them, they need to be heard. Then it's up to the artist to offer scarcities these incoming potential fans can buy. Don't expect to sit on your laurels and get checks every time a coffee shop plays your song, as if they're not doing -you- the favor.
Re: they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop drugs, and only a few pass all the tests and make it to market. without a profit motivation, what would their desire be to toss that sort of money around? answer: none.
Copyright is a law,
Yes, this is true.
AND a moral and/or Natural right.
And this is so unbelievably wrong I stopped reading. It is not a "right" in any sense of the word, it is a legal suspension of natural rights and activities. No amount of wishing is going to change this - you can keep arguing this falsehood until you're blue in the face, but the folks who make money without artificial monopolies are going to pass you right by.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
I think that's a smart way to achieve political change, but I have difficulty seeing past the uselessness of it all. As we see on TechDirt all the time, laws (or their enforcement) aren't going to change natural sharing behavior, and the business models that succeed going forward are the ones that embrace this rather than attempting to fight it.
I think our time is best spent trying to minimize the damage to our government the maximalists are able to inflict and encouraging new creators to embrace superior models. I don't want to support something like limited copyright only to have folks turn around and holler, "See? Those pirates are stealing anyway!"
Re: Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
The other point is that any kind of copyright "reform" is meaningless, because even if you and I accept it as a compromise, it's not going to stop sharing any more than Doe lawsuits. People aren't going to wait thirty years to trade or remix their favorite songs online - nor should they have to.
It's pointless to argue over things like term length when the whole concept grows more irrelevant every day.
Re: Re: Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
When you shoot for compromise, you get nothing. There is no "balance" in copyright as we've been shown time and time again. I think any "reform" should be elimination, though practically I think the best bet is to keep showing new creators how they can employ CwF+RtB models that don't require copyright or patent at all.
I think ultimately, elimination will come through obsolescence - but until then, I'm unwilling to concede any more monopoly privileges to abusers.
Re: cue for many copyright apologists to come here and talk about:
I don't understand why so many of us rush to 5). Why is wanting to abolish toxic "IP" laws such a bad thing? As Mike always says, show me one that works. Day after day I see more instances where copyright and patent are destroying my culture and holding back innovation. We've gone the monopoly route, and it isn't working. Let's wipe the slate clean and start over, and if after a while ii seems like we need to give corporations monopoly rent privileges again, we can have that conversation. My guess? The only people who will miss them are those who can't create or innovate, and were hoping to just keep charging those who can.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
This is an example of the kind of thinking that gets us into these messes. They're trying to insist on a business transaction for copies of the work - copies potential customers can make cheaply and easily at home for less. What they have is a competitive market, but rather than compete, they want to declare it "unfair" and have it forcibly shut down, forcing those people to buy from them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
It's a cognitive reframing that renders terms like "piracy" and "problem" irrelevant. Smart business people should always be asking what they can do to get more customers. One of the disgusting things about "IP" in general is the entitlement mentality it engenders. We have content industries (and even individual creators) expecting to be guaranteed customers regardless of their poor business decisions.