Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Argues Works Entering Public Domain Are Not In Public Interest
An anonymous reader writes: With news that Canada intends to extend
the term of copyright for sound recordings and performers, the
recording industry is now pushing the change by arguing that works
entering the public domain is not in the public interest. It is hard to see how anyone can credibly claim that
works are "lost" to the public domain and that the public interest
in not served by increased public access, but if anyone would make
the claim, it would be the recording industry.
I don't know the details of what Canada is doing, but often when it comes to IP enforcement changes around the world, the United States IP lobbies are somewhere in the shadows. Doesn't take much arm-twisting, just a 'gentle' reminder that future trade negotiations will look unfavorably on those who don't uphold IP similarly to the US.
Now can someone please publish the counter-argument, that Copyright is not in the Public Interest.
Shall we compare them side by side?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
each time I read about the recording industry pulling another fast one, it only encourages me to be bolder and download even MORE 'content'.
I now refuse to buy movies or music. and I can well afford it, but I simply refuse. because I can - the same reason they keep breaking their promises and agreements with us, the consumers.
they can, and we can. they don't care, so why should we?
just give up buying and paying. the bastards are just not worth supporting. too bad about the artists, but they never got all that much, anyway; its the rare performer that really gets rich. most are stiffed by the industry.
seriously - why should anyone follow laws when the big guys always ALWAYS get off scot-free and break rules without the slightest bit of care?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Look how bad things went with Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven works. Shouldda let Disney own their notes.
Table-ized A.I.
By retaining copyrights, the recording industry can limit availability to older works. By limiting availability, they can drive consumer interest perpetually towards newer works. This ensures that there is consistent demand for new music from new artists, which further ensures that new music is continually created, which is good for everyone.
The fact that most of this new music is just rehashed variants of the old music which is no longer on the shelves is irrelevant. The fact that the money going to new artists, in this scenario, represents money that is NOT going to old artists that are still alive, is also irrelevant. The fact that the limits on availability often results in the permanent loss of important cultural artifacts is also irrelevant. The fact that people want the old music is also not relevant. And, lastly, the fact that all of this drives people to illegal file sharing networks is the least relevant bit of all.
If it were not for copyright, Disney would not have to rehash the same shit over and over, but would be forced into some creativity. Star Wars, anyone?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Come on, you really can't think of any music from the 1950's and '60s that's still bringing in money? Who was that truckdriver from Tennessee with the swivel hips and pouty lips? I think his catalog still makes a bit of money and just about all of his biggest hits were more than 50 years ago. When the Etta James hit "At Last" is used in a Mercedes commercial, or in a popular movie, cash registers are ringing for somebody, but certainly not for anyone who had anything to do with making the music.
The first handful of Beatle albums were more than 50 years ago. Hell, Miles Davis' Kind of Blue still sells pretty steady and that was what, 1959?
The most egregious part of this entire saga is how works that were already in the public domain - movies, music, books - are being removed from public domain. This is why you're seeing so many great old movies removed from Netflix. It's shameful and it's hurting both future generations and the current state of the art.
You are welcome on my lawn.
First, file sharing networks is THE goddam most relevant bit of all. THAT's what all this is about. The digitization of IP blew up the revenue stream, and it will continue to do so.
What happened is, all IP looks the same in binary form. That means the tools that manipulate one, manipulates all.
You have those tools. I have those tools. The government has those tools. The IP industries have those tools. Every country on the planet has those tools.
Essentially overnight, IP is in the public domain, not by law, but by lack of friction. Digital IP is slicker'n mockingbird shit on a sycamore limb. To rephrase for Texans: It's slicker'n deer guts on a door knob.
File sharing networks have no problem dragging copies from here to there, to everywhere.
That's all we need to know. This is not your father's IP world.
The entertainment business has been making way too much for way too long. Those days are over and there's no going back.
What we're hearing from IP interests is their last breaths.
People are going to have to produce entertainment for time and material and a realistic margin of profit.
It will be good.
People will be producing IP because, by golly, by gum, it's fun.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
If you still have any respect for this forum within Slashdot, would you kindly cut out your political crap, please?
As this is a thread discussing the action of GREEDY ASSHOLES of the Music Industry, can you please stick to the context?
Subservience to the vested elite is not limited to the Conservatives - the critters on the other side of the isle, the Liberals, have also proven to be doing the same thing
It is thus an utter disgust for you kind to pollute this conversation by astroturfing the 'conservative vs liberal' debate
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !