A Composer's-Eye View of the Copyright Wars

bonch writes "As an experiment, composer Jason Robert Brown logged onto a site illegally offering his sheet music for download and contacted hundreds of users, politely asking them to stop listing the material. Most complied, some were confused, and a few fought back. Brown chronicles a lengthy exchange he had with a teenage girl named Brenna, which provides an interesting insight into the artists' perspective of the copyright debate. He also responds to several points raised in comments to the article and says, 'I don't wish to be the enemy; I'm just a guy trying to make a living.'"

Comments

Re:Ahhh... I Finally Get It!

[mjwx]

This post is crystallised what I suspect is the "recording-cartel-approved" stance with regards to culture. I will now correct your points.

1. If you want to make a living creating works that exist in a data format (music, books, video) just accept the fact that nobody owes you a dime for your time. If some people choose to drop some money in your hat, that's awesome - but don't count on it.

You're assuming that one is entitled to get paid, you're also assuming that because you put money into something it has an intrinsic value equal to or greater then the time and money already expended on it. This falls down when you find out that, a product is worth what a purchaser will pay for it. Quite simple, because it cost you x dollars does not mean it is worth x dollars in the market. If your purchasers determine your product is worth 0 dollars you are not then entitled to payment.

2. If your music is so great, tour and make money that way. each band member might be able to clear $80 a night! Of course you'll need a huge cash infusion (i.e. debt) to start touring big, but I'm sure the banks will be happy to help you with loans for such a riskless endeavour.

This is how a band actually makes money. More often then not a portion of the money raised from touring will go to repay the recording contract debt (a loan forwarded to the artist by the publisher to cover the costs of hiring a studio, producing a film clip, living expenses, manufacture and distribution of an album as well as managers customary 10%) as CD sales often do not cover this debt 100%. Publishers do not take a loss here if it can be avoided even if it means reducing people to destitution. Loan's aren't given to artists by banks, they are given by publishers as banks have to follow rules about how to treat the debtor.

3. Always remember - costs like studio time, special effects, actors, musicians, props, sets, insurance, essentially every cost involved in the production of your work magically disconnect from the work itself at the moment it is finalized. A ripped copy of that work has absolutely no moral, legal, or implied connection to any of those costs.

Once again we go back to point number 1. Just because you spent x dollars on y does not entitle you to receive x dollars for y. When the costs of distribution are nil (zero cost to produce and distribute a flawless copy) all of these costs are diluted until they cant be realistically measured on the scale that money operates (I.E, each copy becomes a fraction of a cent).

You've pretty much described the Modus Operandi of the recording industry. 1. set the artist up in debt. 2. make sure the only way they can earn money for themselves is by hard touring. 3. as soon as their recording is complete disconnect the artist from their own works. Remember that Brittany Spears does not hold the rights to her own songs, her recording studio does.

As for the entity "recording-cartel" I hearby decree that the whole idea of "Independent Artist" is forever banned. You have been doomed to abusive and one sided contracts.