Digital "property" - have our laws not adapted to new technology?

[Trek234]

So what's another corporate scheme?

Artists through out history have generally had a difficult time making funds unless they had some very very very special talent or recognition. Twenty or so years ago that changed.

I believe that copying/reproducing from around the 80s to present has taken on an ENTIRELY different form than the traditional concept of copying *particularly* in relation to music.

Previously musicians had to WORK for a living like everyone else. They wrote the songs, practiced, and then went to perform in front of people. They got paid PER performance - and it generally wasn't a fortune unless they deserved it. This has conceivably been the case for thousands of years and has only changed the past 20 or so years.

It is now possible to work for 3 minutes** and have that 3 minutes potentially multiplied thousands or even millions of times when you do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING more. No more work - that's it. And for each of those thousands or millions of times to which you have done NO additional work you expect $10 per multiplication. You then can live in luxury with ungodly amounts of money for the rest of your days.

This seems to be the equivalent of - almost - working legitimately for a $10 bill, then taking it and putting it in a copy machine, and running it through a couple thousand times. Then saying you deserved that money and worked for it. Or like a slave holder working hard for all that cotton.

I believe this situation is a gross exploitation of constitutional principals of intellectual property - to which mostly applied to patents and inventions at the time. If you had invented a washing machine you had to get the materials for it and you had to build it. You had to WORK to get the parts and to assemble those machines. The basic constitutional principal of intellectual property NEVER envisioned that you would invent a washing machine and suddenly have 5 million of them - or a virtual unlimited supply - in the next five days to which cost you nothing to generate and that no one else could have the legal ability to generate but you. Even worse - that you would be entitled to X number of dollars (whatever you so defined) for each of those machines that you never had to work for or cost you to generate.

No let me say right now that this applies largely to the corporations who do the copying (and if it is a corporation and not the artist it then goes in to exploitation as well) and not the artist unless the corporation is giving them a large cut. Again though ANY cut they get based off of duplications at zero cost or work to them are not legitimately worked for. Otherwise they actually do have to go perform and work for the money, but the corporation still does not.

Countless people at DU complain about George Bush not having to WORK for his money. He did not have to get up early in the morning, pee in a cup, do as he was told for 8 hours or longer at cost to his physical or emotional health, and repeat for most of his life like 99% of the world has to do. These music corporations are functioning on the same damn principal as Bush and countless other members of the "upper class" of not having to WORK or SACRIFICE for the money they make using the ability to generate an unlimited supply of product at practically zero cost after the first production - which in it's self may very well cost nothing or require little work. They make this money off the work of others, and is perhaps the WORST in the music industry with the ability to product a product at zero cost AND have the legal ability to deny ANY other organization the ability to produce that product. No other industry can claim such an undemocratic benefit.

It is for these reasons - not having to work or sacrifice for money - that I believe ANY and ALL laws entitling music corporations to prevent others from generating the infinite supply they are able to generate should be repealed. Being able to generate mass amounts of money while not working for it is not a democratic principal, and I don't feel our laws have adapted to this new situation.


**I of course realize 3 minutes is not all that goes in to generating 12 songs (typical amount on a CD - let's just pretend that 10 of them are not generally trash) for the artist, but it sure is 3 minutes for the corporation. Let's remember that pressed CD silvers can cost LESS than ONE CENT when obtained in bulk.

[lkinsale]

1. Here's the copyright law...

U.S. Copyright Law

I realize you don't like it. I understand you want to figure out a way to make someone else's work "belong" to you and feel ok about it. I realize it may bug you that some musicians/actors/writers are successful and make a lot of money. Most of us barely get by, and need the few cents of royalty on every single sale we get. We are beset on every side, and now you want to claim it's just too easy for us.

I work for years--YEARS, mind you--to write a book. Some people are faster than me. Some are slower. Some books/records sell millions. The vast majority flop. So as an owner of intellectual property, I spend all this time and effort and put it out there and hope enough people will like it that it will at least pay for the time I spent to create it.

And listen up. IT WOULD NOT EXIST IF I HAD NOT CREATED IT. You didn't create it. So in order to enjoy the fruits of my labor, you pay something. Or else go create your own intellectual property and enjoy that.

Musicians don't just get up and play "for three minutes." They also spend years learning their trade and developing and writing their music. They also, if they are blessed, may have some native talent that every Joe Blow doesn't have. Publishers and record companies don't just press CD's. There's a whole industry devoted to the same kinds of requirements that any industry has in order to make it work--marketing, sales, distribution, production. None of those people do things for "3 minutes" or for free. They are full-time jobs, just like anybody's job.

As to the evil corporations--well, lemme assure you, I have a lot more experience of the evil of publishers and their ilk than you do. And I can deal with 'em, thanks. They will try to screw me, oh yes. That's why I have an agent and I read my contracts and do my best to get a good deal.

Millions for no work! Pffft! That's so beyond silly.

[Trek234]

2. Wow you totally ignored every point made

Good job! Why did you even point to copyright law? It was a political post RECOGNIZING the copyright law and supporting repealing it in relation to music corporations making millions that are not worked for.

"I realize you don't like it. I understand you want to figure out a way to make someone else's work "belong" to you and feel ok about it."

Bull shit. That was not the point at all. It was about corporate ownership screwing the artist. I NEVER said the ARTIST should not be able to copyright and sell their work that THEY worked for. I said it should be ILLEGAL for corporations to screw them over and take that work when they didn't do a damn thing to create it.

"I work for years--YEARS, mind you--to write a book."

Again if you read the post you would note I said it was unique to MUSIC. So what are you talking about a book for?

Last time I checked corporations spend ZERO time making a song.

"I spend all this time and effort and put it out there and hope enough people will like it that it will at least pay for the time I spent to create it. "

That's right. How would you feel if a corporation took your book from you, copied it a million times, and then gave you 1% of the profits?

"And listen up. IT WOULD NOT EXIST IF I HAD NOT CREATED IT. You didn't create it. So in order to enjoy the fruits of my labor, you pay something. Or else go create your own intellectual property and enjoy that."

What is your problem? Obviously you have a problem with an individual taking something from you, but you don't have a problem with a corporation doing the same thing? Nice double standard.

"Musicians don't just get up and play "for three minutes."

MY GOD! Did you even bother to read the post??? Note the part where I say "I of course realize 3 minutes is not all that goes in to generating 12 songs... for the artist...but it sure is 3 minutes for the corporation" Where the HELL did you get this that I was saying the Musicians spent 3 minutes when I very CLEARLY state they do NOT and it is the corporations?

"Publishers and record companies don't just press CD's"

Extra costs so what? Slave holders had to pay for housing, distribution, shipping, etc. The point is the corporation did not WORK for that music. They TOOK it and copied it millions of times to PAY for those extras (i.e. advertising and marketing as you so note that they spend money on but gets them MORE money) and the CEOs fat pay check while the artist gets screwed over.

"well, lemme assure you, I have a lot more experience of the evil of publishers and their ilk than you do"

Wrong. You have ZERO experience in the music industry which is what this post was about and ONLY about. Get it right - the music industry and the book industry are different in MANY key ways.

"Millions for no work! Pffft! That's so beyond silly. "

So you don't have a problem with me taking your book and copying it a million times, selling it, and then giving you a few percent of what I make off of it? Did I do the work of making that book or did you?