Slashdot Mirror
100 Years of Copyright Hysteria
Nate Anderson pens a fine historical retrospective for Ars Technica: a look at 100 years of Big Content's fearmongering, in their own words. There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?"). There was the photocopier after World War II. There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business. He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler — in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone. Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV. Anderson concludes with a quote from copyright expert William Patry in his book Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars: "I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."
Let me be the first to say, "no duh".
The RIAA (and later the MPAA,) have fought EVERY single innovation that even looks like it might possibly impinge on their clients' business turf, right up until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that they're actually preventing their client's from making more money than if they kept their head in the sand.
If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.
They are a creation dating from before the invention of democracy and all they have ever done is behave like it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Got to love that quote at the end. No-one makes music (or not) because they expect financial compensation. This is not true with movies, and perhaps that's why most suck. I would not lend Michael Bay $1 to make a movie, let alone give him $20M
As technology improves, we are eventually going to forget about copyrights; the laws might remain on the books, and big corporations will be busy suing each other over copyrights, but the average citizen will no longer be affected by them. We are almost there already; high school and college students download music and movies without a thought to copyrights, and share the files with their friends. Once they grow up, copyrights will have virtually no meaning for the average person in society.
Palm trees and 8
Recording technology and radio obliterated small-scale performances and local music. They still exist, obviously, but have nowhere near the cultural prominence or respect that they once did.
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music
you got to admit it, the guy predicted that correctly!
The others referenced in the summary, not so good. The music industry didn't implode after cassette tapes appeared, there's no reason to think the movie industry will implode now bittorrent's appeared either.
The RIAA use of stand-over tactics, mostly sanctioned by courts that failed the little man, is an innovation. . . . . . . They will be swept away in time and few will mourn their passing.
and me without my mod points. darnit!
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
Copyright means the RIGHT to make a COPY after a grace period of time to allow the author to profit from his work. It initially wasn't 80+ years either.
And these days they seem to think it means "you don't have any RIGHT to COPY" our work. Well, if they forfeit that aspect of the copyright, then we will deny them the right to profit from it.
"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."
DRM!
Oh, wait...
Is that they run their businesses like they're not subject to all the norms of business. They don't budget properly, do cost or quality control well, don't cater to niche markets well, don't treat their customers very well and often don't even know really what their customers will probably want.
If they would start doing some quality and cost control, treat their customers well and provide them the content whenever and wherever they want it (for a modest fee), the public's attitude toward piracy would be markedly different.
Consider the number of pianos then and now.
Then add in the number of guitars, bass buitars, synth's, horns, every kind of drum; we have more musicians alive now than have lived before, PERIOD.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I just placed an order for the "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" book. I am looking forward to reading it.
I think that we've discussed it before, but there has also been 100 years of systematic indoctrination about copyright in our schools. In grad school I listened to an outside speaker come in and say that the institution of copyright was created to make sure that companies make money. She believed that, too, as that is what "common knowledge" now says copyright is.
The hysteria is very, very deep. Now when you try to explain the Constitutional reasoning behind copyright you only get blank stares and laughs.
"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."
I can't think of anything that owes it's origin to the banks, advertising, or distribution.
"Singing will no longer be a fine accomplishment; vocal exercises so important a factor in the curriculum of physical culture will be out of vogue. Then what of the national throat? Will it not weaken?"
Have you heard the "quality" of "singers" we've (over-)produced in the last 10 years??? Pick an episode, any episode, of Saturday Night Live from the last 10 years. NO ONE sounds live the way they sound on recording. I know what you're thinking: Beyonce. Fine. You're right. Pick another one. Can you?
The price reflects that. However, my most treasured music is on paper.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Most of those things did significantly change entertainment. Even things like VHS tapes had a major impact on revenues. The studios managed to adapt but the independents took a hit. Now that things started to get better cheap equipment flooded the market with cheap crappy films so they took their hardest hit yet. All of those innovations put together haven't impacted the industries like the internet. With near unlimited bandwidth and an army of people able to crack most any security measures the dam has quite literally broke. People complain about how expensive things are but if you factor in inflation album prices are flat whiles sales numbers drop. Music was overpriced for years but inflation did finally catch up. Movie ticket prices were around $3 in the 70s but you could also buy a nice car for $5,000. A Corvette may have set you back 7K or 8K. The point is some things have gone up far more than entertainment. A bounced check would have run you a $1 back in the 70s where as now it's $35 to $45. A hospital room was around $150, just for the room, now it's $1,500 or more. In many ways entertainment is a bargain. Greed isn't the factor everyone claims it's changing attitudes of consumers. They want more stuff and their incomes have been flat for a decade or more. If you take an iPod you want everyone accepts that as stealing but if you download a movie or song you want hey it's just 1s and 0s. No harm no foul. It's this perception that has changed. Unfortunately content takes money to produce just like iPods so it will affect what's out there. You can have government funding but that means higher taxes and the government decides what you see and listen to. There's the free market but that's what most are rebelling against. Take away the money and you are left with what fans make in their garages. I keep hearing fans can do it better but virtually everything I've seen is poorly written, silly acting and poor production values. Digital effects have improved some of them but a lot of those are pros doing it in their spare time and often with access to studio equipment. If it takes 50K or 100K in equipment how many films will get made when people are doing them in their spare time with a normal day job? As people want more and more expensive toys with their incomes stagnant they will keep cutting corners to buy the toys and the easiest corner they see to cut is downloading rather than buying content. Unfortunately that new iPod may not be as bright and shiny if there's no content to load on it.
I know this comment (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1402013&cid=29730503) was an angry troll, but he voices the fear of the copyright industry perfectly just the same.
Copyright is a secondary aspect of art. It is the performance and the original art that people want to see. I can get a copy of a Van Gough at WalMart for $9.99, but the original is priceless. I can download Jethro Tull's entire music collection off the internet for free and I would still pay more than $100 a ticket to go to a concert lasting between 1 and 2 hours. Some movies I will want to see at the theater, others on DVD, others on TV and still others not at all.
The point I'm trying to get at is this -- people who will pay, will pay and it doesn't matter how much or how little protection there is. Should there be some? Yeah -- because there are people out there who will try to make a business out of copying things for sale and that's not fair either. (I speak of REAL pirates... the bootleggers who sell copies as though they were real) But these copyright industrialists have taken things too far. Their industry is based on the creative works of others and have indeed resulted in the suppression and ruination of creative works.
And people will ALWAYS want to create music and perform the arts whether there is much if any money in it at all. It is a natural drive in we humans. These practices weren't initially driven as a for-profit activity. They did it as a form of self expression and as a means of entertaining those around them. It is the greedy copyright industrialists who are trying to bottle up the hearts and souls of the creative and expressive to make money. What's worse is that the greed is a disease that people quite often catch for themselves turning creatives into greedy creatives.
I liken the difference to people who become doctors and nurses. Some do it because they feel they have a need to help people. Some do it because a lot of people in the medical industry live in really big houses and own a lot of things. Unfortunately, it's a lot more difficult to tell the difference between the real doctors and nurses and the ones who are just in it for the money, but I dare you to make an argument for going to a doctor who is in it for the money instead of the one who is in it for the good of humanity.
The only business that is ever threatened by improved technologies are those that need to be left behind. This article puts it out nicely and shows how long this game has been going on. DAT was an excellent technology and really would have been nice but the copyright industrialists pretty much ruined it. HDMI is a nice interface for media playback devices, but it too is a bit buggered in the name of the "money for nothing" industrialists. The average joe on the streets may never fully appreciate the damage and harm caused by the copyright industrialists, but stories like these are important when trying to show it to them and showing how incredibly bad the copyright industrialists are.
The copyright industrialists don't even KNOW they are bad. The greedy don't even know they are greedy. They simply want what they want and will do a great deal to get it. The difference is that they are willing to harm others to get what they want while the average joe is willing to work for his pay. I think when you boil it down to the question of whether or not someone is willing to harm others for profit, that is probably the best way to determine if someone is "bad" or not. (There are tow truck drivers who will respond in an emergency to assist. There are tow truck drivers who are set up to tow the vehicles and hold vehicles for usurious ransom. The difference is pretty clear.)
By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works. Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.
It also leaves out conglomerates, such as Sony, parent of Sony Music, who happens to be responsible for BluRay technology. He also neglects the DVD, which was developed by a consortium of companies including Sony and TimeWarner. Maybe he has never heard of the Sony Music division, but how could he not have heard of TimeWarner?
Is the author of that quote lying or just ignorant? If the former, nothing he says can be considered reliable. If the latter, his opinion is worthless.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
This really isn't something that only exists in communications. If there were a huge market for hygienic corn cobs, you'd have heard that toilet paper caused rectal tumors or that improper squatting stunted the growth of children. This is just the way of business. When someone gets close to your bread and butter you squeal.
And any work not in the form in which it is created must have the transformative version to work with.
A transformative work is one that allows the intellectual content to be transformed to a more modern version.
E.g. Encoded movies/music must have one version with an open encoding. DRM'd products must have one version without DRM. Software must have source code.
Without these you can't transcode the works to fit on a new medium or work on a new technology.
How many games are lost because source code is thrown away and you can no longer get the OS it was written for?
None of the examples mentioned are related to copyright in the Slashdot sense of the word. There is ZERO support in the examples for doing away with copyright.
"There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?"). There was the photocopier after World War II. There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business. He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler — in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone. Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV."
With the exception of Napster, that was shut down, and recording media, which in many nations carry a levy paid to the music industry, these are examples of luddites and those who fear new technology - not in any way related to the advantages or disadvantages of copyrights. You cannot read these examples and say "AHA, those are some good examples of why copyright is a bad thing".
The only possible justification for the title "Copyright Hysteria" is that "Some of the companies that have warned against new inventions have also had business models which depends on copyright" - which is a deceitful herring, because by far MOST companies rely in some way on copyrights. This is similar to saying "Copyright Bribes", and pointing to companies that have bribed developing nations WHILE AT THE SAME TIME depended on copyrights for their business model. WTF is up with the editor?
Before, with recordings, one copy was all that was "original". ANY copy would degrade the quality. Copy a copy and the quality was already POOR. That goes for photocopy, LPs, tape, whatever. The problem today is that's not the case. A copy is no longer a copy, it is a perfect recreation of the source. No generational loss means the 1000th copy (copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...) is a perfect a reproduction as the first. And that is the problem.
Frankly, copyrights and patents need to be done away with. Why should it be justified that writers, singers, computer programers, etc., do some work once, and then magically reproduce it over and over and over, without really working, and they get paid as if they did that work all over again.
For example. I have a friend who just wrote a program. He gets paid $20 a copy, per year. He has sold $5,000 copies, so he makes $100,000 a year, without really doing anything. The initial time he spent on the program was a year. If he were anyone else, he would get $100,000 for his initial work, and then if he wanted to make another $100,000 dollars, he would have to keep working just as hard, for another year.
It only makes complete sense to require singers to actually perform, in concert, or in the studio, if they want to get paid. Writers should get paid for their time actually writing, and computer programmers should only get paid for their time actually programming. Inventors should get paid for a product produced, and not be allowed to own patents for ideas.
Copyrights and patents are unfair, and cater to a small portion of society. Copyrights and patents treat certain industries as if their time is somehow more valuable than the average person.
Please note, I am an inventor and a computer programmer. Also, most patents and copyrights belong to big companies, and not the individual that came up with the idea or material, so in that sense, the idea of patents and copyrights has failed anyways.
that's pretty much the conceptualization of cyberspace, versus "meatspace", the real world, where if you own a car, and someone takes it, you've been deprived of a car: genuine stealing, as opposed to "stealing" digital content, which isn't stealing at all
we talk about how you can effortlessly copy a file and move it anywhere in any quantity at no difference in cost, and you would think this instantaneous sharing of digital content is some newfangled philosophical challenge brought about by the latest technological innovation. a concept that wasn't dramatic enough in societal impact before the internet to have much bearing on anyone's thinking
and here's this guy from the 200 years ago, when morse code was decades off far off science fiction, pretty much nailing the issue on the head. man those founding fathers were smart
i guess al gore has to step aside: thomas jefferson conceptualized the internet! ;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do we have anything as good as Beethoven symphonies yet?
What about even approximating Wagner, or Bruckner?
As we become able to produce more and more quantity, it seems quality declines.
Something to ponder.
Futurist Traditionalism
Since the invention of the printing press centuries ago, it was technology that made possible to make an industry from art. Now it is the same kind of technology that is taking away what it gave. We will have to live with the hysteria until someone comes up with something smarter.
My other signature is a car
> Performing is not "creating music".
Good, so if I would illegally copy music, I only am infringing on the rights of the songwriter, and so only need to pay ASCAP/BMI. Interesting philosophical take on copyright in music, but not connected with the legal reality of our times.
> We're just no longer in the practice of making our own mediocre performances
> at home based off of works that are sufficiently dumbed down.
And for the same reason, I should tell my children not to bother to attempt to do any sports, since their performances will be mediocre compared with professional athletes. And I shouldn't bother to submit my patches for Random_OSS_Project, because they are for sure not as good as they would be if SuperDuperInvolvedProgrammer did them.
Somehow I feel your reaction is a reaction to some bad life experiences. Did some family member try to learn to play bagpipes while you were growing up?
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?").
When was the last time you gathered around the family piano to sing? And no, karaoke does not count as the modern equivalent.
Copyrights and patents need to be eliminated.
speech: the original idea sharing engine
so the internet didn't kill copyright. copyright as an enforceable, philosophically sound concept was destroyed sometime in the pleistocene ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't forge player pianos, subject of one of the earliest copyright suits over technology.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Here's what Thomas Jefferson said
Jefferson was part of the slave-holding elite.
The "light" wasn't for the blacks who built the University of Virginia or who were brought to the school as servants for its - all-male - students.
Jefferson lived as aristocrats have always lived - pretty much as if he had unlimited funds - and unlimited hands to draw upon - and like many of his class he spent most of his life on the edge of bankruptcy.
This tends to have disastrous consequences for those dependent on The Master's patronage.
Jefferson's slaves might reasonably have asked why they weren't being compensated for their own contributions - or whether they might be in better hands with a northerner who knew how to turn an idea into an invention that just might bring in some much-needed cash.
It interests me how easily the populist-anarchic-socialist-libertarian geek takes on the coloration of an aristocratic elite-
when the really interesting things in American art and invention have always had solid lower and middle class roots - a world thoroughly tainted with thoughts of property and profit.
Now we've gotten rid of outright slavery, why not get rid of the copyrights that this slaver thought should be allowed?
What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?
Chelsea Charms. 'Nuff said.
"A public domain work is an orphan. No one is responsible for its life. But everyone exploits its use, until that time cretain when it becomes soiled and haggard, barren of its previous virtues. Who, then, will invest the funds to renovate and nourish its future life, when on one owns it? How does the consumer benefit from that scenario? The answer is, there is no benefit."
-- Jack Valenti
As found in 'Digital Copyright' by Jessica Litman
"innovation in either the creation or distribution of works"
Note that the so-called copyright industry is actually not mainly about making copies. They finance the creation of works and distribute them. I would argue that no important innovations in creation has come from them and they have actively worked against any and all innovations in distribution.
I think copyright is a misnomer in the modern world and maybe it always was. It should be called distribution rights. Making copies without selling or otherwise transfering them to others was just not thought of when copyright was invented. Making of a copy was seen as intent to distribute.
Where I live there is live music available somewhere in the town every single day of the week.
Even to people living in the United States and under age 21? A lot of live music is played in bars, and a lot of U.S. states ban even accompanied minors from bars.
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?").
Ummm...he was right, wasn't he?
And let's be honest here, in Sousa's time, and the century before, copyright infringement was rampant and frequently did have a serious financial impact on writers and composers.
The price reflects that. However, my most treasured music is on paper.
Wow! You have piano rolls!
"For software, I can see legit reasons to want to keep source under wraps for the duration of the copyright."
What legit reasons?
It's still copyrighted. Just because I can see the words used and the order that JK Rowling used to make her latest book doesn't mean I can take significant chunks out and use them in my book.
And the works still both need significant work to make them fit in the new work.
"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."
I'm no fan of the ridiculous terms of copyright law, but I suspect a lot of innovation has happened as an indirect cause of it. The creation of high tech rendering would likely have never materialized if...
1. Its creators thought their software could/would be freely copied. ILM and Pixar have spent a lot of bones to do what they can do.
2. The creators of movies (Toy Story, Wall-E, Monsters Inc, LOTR, etc)used with that technology thought they couldn't get a return on their multi million $$ investments.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
People skipping commercials are stealing television.
People who wear body armor are stealing my ammunition.
People fluoridating water are sapping and impurifying all of our precious bodily fluids!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
The author doesn't go back far enough if he can't find any usefulness deriving from copyrights. At the risk of protecting the RIAA (they abuse the law and its intent), the song Oh Susannah was the #1 hit of 1840 and because of the money it made, there was a huge lawsuit over who got all those entertainment dollars. Without copyright, there wouldn't have been all the money that supported Foster to write more songs, there would simply have been a lot of bad copies. Linux anyone?
... other forms of creativity have arisen. Think about the massive increase in things like photography, web page design, video (YouTube, anyone)? There are probably more outlets for the creative person today than there have ever been in the past - it's just that with more things to choose from, fewer people are choosing to make music.
A single significant innovation: The RIAA Curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization for correct playback of vinyl records.
Now, of course, they did patent the RIAA equalization curve so that others would have to pay money to make their records sound good, but it was a significant innovation.
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
Informative, obscure, and likely to be missed lower in the comments.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Even after the copyright will be gone, music will survive. Kids nowadays spend ever more money on music: going to performances, buying gadgets textbooks, photo's, but not on discs or downloads. With hindsight, the music on discs era will have been only 50 years in the timeless history of music.
>> All of the "creation" is being done by the guy that
>> wrote the original bit of sheet music.
uhuh - and that's why MIDI sounds just like a real orchestra. oh wait...
Every performance is an interpretation, which is a creative process. Are you really trying to assert that participating in the creation of music is only a little bit more creative than sitting back and listening to a recording? If so, I'd be guessing that you don't actually _play_ any musical instruments, and probably don't derive a lot of pleasure from music (and hence are speaking from almost total ignorance).
Any tie-in with copyright aside, Sousa was correct. Technology has negative sides, and music playback technology deeply damaged the participatory nature of music in our culture, and the associated music skills in the population.
Just because you could never master the piano doesn't mean that the rest of society is such a dismal failure. My mother was a decent pianist, and I'm no sloth either. My sister's got a decent voice and can carry a decent tune. I'm not too bad. My daughter has a lovely voice and is quite creative and sings and creates lyrics constantly. But, then she's kind of tending to lean in the category of prodigy, maybe with encouragement and training.
Also, performing music is way more non-passive than vegging out with an earbud on. If you don't believe me, try it sometime. Also, I wouldn't call many works dumbed down. Maybe those by the Beatles and such. I'd like to see you perform some of Mozart's music and call it dumbed down. Certainly there are many alternate forms of some music, that is simplified for beginning students. That is strictly for instructional purposes and done after the fact of the creation of the original music.
Of twentieth-century orchestral/"high art" composers, Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, and Strauss were all at least on a par with Bruckner (and better than Wagner), and Shostakovich's symphonies were as important as Beethoven's and at least as good as Schubert's.
I could never agree to this.
The depth of Beethoven and Bruckner is lacking in these rather transparent substitutes you have suggested.
You may think your opinion is witty, and universal, but the majority of classical listeners disagree with you for a simple reason: the newer stuff isn't as good.
(And to the other 'net wit above: of course I'm familiar with the newer stuff. I'd have to be to make the comment I did. Were you trying to imply I lacked knowledge, instead of making a counterargument? Didn't we get over that in middle school?)
Futurist Traditionalism
Every time I hear the copyright arguments, I always laugh. People see it in shades of black and white. Either you are stealing music/movies, or you are buying music/movies. While I have little or no respect for people who burn dvd's then sell them around the place, I see no problem if my buddy recommends a movie to me, and burns me a copy of it. What's the difference between that, and lending it to me (aside from the fact that he would likely not want his original copy damaged/lost)? You can complain about high school and college students not buying movies/music, but I can assure you, most do it simply because they DO NOT have money. I have downloaded only a small handful of movies and all songs I have downloaded (with a few exceptions) are songs I have either owned the cd for, or still own. Being in college, I don't have the time to go and and pay 15 dollars for a movie or a cd. And I can still look back at the 90's when cd's were going for almost 30 bucks at times, when we all knew they cost NOTHING to make. So we sat back, and let you rake in millions/billions, and now the shoe is on the other foot, and the *AA's are pissed. But you can't say they're losing as much money as they claim. I don't spend ANY money on cd's, and I can assure you, even without downloadable movies and music, I still would likely not be spending any money on them.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
So that means Mickey Mouse, which was created in 1928, should now be public domain.
Mickey Mouse is a trademark, not a copyright work. Steamboat Willy should be public domain.