Forums > Social Discussion > Copyright: music, technology, science, and society

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
Mr Majestik
Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Member Since: 9th Mar 2004
Total posts: 4693
Posted:i am aware this old thread is still relevant to the topic, but thats only one aspect.

yesterday i (ironically) went to see the new movie/documentary RIP: a remix manifesto (legally free to view here) at the local indy cinema.

it reignited my interest in the concept of copyright both in the music industry, the internet, and how it effects our society. The basic premise of the movie is that the concept of copyright has been abused by corporations and enshrined in US law to restrict, control, and profit from the use of ideas. the documentrys title, a manifest, explains how the problem arose, what its doing to our society, and why things must be changed:

Originally Posted By: a remixers manifesto
1 Culture always builds on the past

2 The past always tries to control the future

3 our future is becoming less free

4 to build free societies you must limit the control of the past

The internet is a program used by the world to share information. business attempts through copyright to control that flow of information on the internet because they are not making money from it. if this is allowed the very concept of free information is at risk. to improve ourselves its imperative that we share and not censor, free and not imprison.

There is a certain part of the film that mentions Brazil ignoring a patent held by Merck, a big pharmaceutical company, because they were essentially demanding more money for a antiretroviral drug for the treatment of HIV than they charged another country. as a result Brazil decided to import a generic drug that according to US patents was illegal. i found this a powerful example of the absurdity of copyright laws, where a company can legally dictate what price another government must pay to provide healthcare to its people.

GirlTalk, a prominent mashup DJ, is also a biomedical engineer, and he mentions the difficulties in the field of science where copyright laws prohibit people from investigating certain concepts and creations simply because someone else thought of it first. this does not mean the other person is actually going to use it, just that they reserve the right to at some point in the future if they feel like it. and in the mean time scientific progress is being restricted.

so i'd invite you all to watch the documentry available in the link above, and then post your musings. is the documentary flawed? is it spot on? have you considered the issue before? what should be done about it? should anything be done about it? what is the most appropriate response to the issue?


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete Topic

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: Fire Tomas I see it the guitars remain legendary because of the high level of quality the companies are able to hold up in the manufacturing process.

the point has been brought forward that the patents not serve to protect the investment of zillions or dollars in research and development, but merely to make bazillions of dollars in return - see the patenting of traditional medicine mentioned in earlier articles.

Fire Tom, the legendary status and quality of the instruments is not being questioned here. It would also appear that you support the patenting of traditional medicines, by traditional owners (ed), but somehow object to the patenting of modern medicines.



Originally Posted By: astonBackyard inventions and so on can only go so far, especially these days. It would probably be quite straightforward to develop something new in a given field, but to actually make something off it and get back what you spent in time and money to actually come up with a working prototype?

aston, its not an entire solution, but we have a program here called the New Inventors. Which is great to watch, as people come up with all their weird and wonderful invgentions. Some are patented, while some need lots of development.


PS Those Hyperlights are cool cool


EDITED_BY: Stone (1245276871)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

aston
aston

Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2007
Total posts: 4061
Posted:The other thing to think about is that a lot of new stuff is expensive when first made. Once there is enough demand for it and people find better ways to make it, it gets cheaper and easier to get. Aluminium is a good example. It used to be more expensive than gold, but to extract it has become a lot cheaper.

'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:there is no patent on aluminium, hence there could be one on the process... but I get what you mean...

Once you got a sample (which is quite expensive to make) it's all downhill from there...

Stone: no, I am only not supporting patenting traditional medicine by modern corporations.... smile

Maybe time is a master in this one... see only two days ago, I went to my leather tailor here in Bali - who made me two belts according to my design and violently overcharged me - and upon entering his shop I noticed that he made two more in that design...

jo man, it's cool that I paid him for practising on my designs bounce2

one point being that patents are quite costly, not only to develop the method or sample or prototype, but also to put it in writing and register that patent... and then to market the product.

so it feels quite like a big players game, the exclusive club of already established companies vs. the backyard entrepreneur...

One more thing Stone: maybe you haven't noticed, but the trend is not towards "the best product on the market" but "the one with the highest profit margin" that makes it into the shops...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

aston
aston

Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2007
Total posts: 4061
Posted:Why could you not patent your method of extracting an ore?

If it is different enough (uses a different catalyst, or different temperatures or whatever) and efficient enough, you would probably need new machinery anyway.

I think you can patent the process though.


'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:You could ... I agree, you can patent process and machinery (provided they are a technical advance)

[sic: sorry it seems as if the "second lingo bug" has stricken me across the board...]


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: Fire Tom
Stone: no, I am only not supporting patenting traditional medicine by modern corporations

Fair enough Fire Tom, the double negative had me stumped for a while. However, I dont support the exploitation of traditional medicines or people.

Originally Posted By: Fire TomMaybe time is a master in this one... see only two days ago, I went to my leather tailor here in Bali - who made me two belts according to my design and violently overcharged me - and upon entering his shop I noticed that he made two more in that design...

It could be time Fire Tom, or it could be karma duck


Majestik, did you see this one: Music piracy: woman ordered to pay $2.4m

A US jury has ordered a woman to pay $US1.9 million ($2.4 million) in damages for illegally downloading 24 songs in a high-profile digital piracy case. Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, a single mother of four from the US state of Minnesota, was found liable for using the Kazaa peer-to-peer file-sharing network to download the songs over the internet. The jury took just under five hours to reach its verdict. It ordered Thomas-Rasset to pay $2.4 million - or $100,000 per song - to six record companies: Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros Records and UMG Recordings.

This is just wrong.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:as usual I had a lot typed but I deleted it all.


To be short...The record company does not benefit musicians, it has not for decades. It is a cancer that is killing the art form, and refusing to pay THE COMPANIES is not such a bad thing. If you want the artist to actually make money, see them live, hand them a 5 dollar tip, etc, that'll make them more money than buying their album.

As for medicine; big surprise it is a giant corrupt industry.

Copyright exists for a good a reason, but it has been abused heavily, and some lines need to be drawn.


Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Stone: it certainly is Karma, no doubt from my side - sure it has been for two sides of the coin, me getting copied and him getting caught in the act... spank wink

And definitely I needed to see how it feels, first hand experience so to speak. And I noticed that ideal and reality are two different things.

70 years after the dead of an artist, usually his work is free of any royalty... why would a copyright survive its creator? Not sure, but it's the way it is... take the case of genialistic M.C.Esher

The ideal would be to create (whatever), to surrender the art to the society and to keep confidence that it will be rewarded. Sometimes one needs a lot of confidence... but it might pay... loads of people do it - just look at the amount of tutorials you find here and on YouTube...

In the field of spinning arts often you can trace the teacher from the students moves... Is it (not) a compliment? Is a "licenses" (so to speak) obtained by paying for tuition for its re-distribution?

MRC I definitely side that last statement of yours:

Originally Posted By: MRCCopyright exists for a good a reason, but it has been abused heavily, and some lines need to be drawn.

Stone: $1.9 million in damages... US legislation proves to be "off" in many ways... that's just plain wrong.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mr Majestik
Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Member Since: 9th Mar 2004
Total posts: 4693
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoneMajestik, did you see this one: Music piracy: woman ordered to pay $2.4m

A US jury has ordered a woman to pay $US1.9 million ($2.4 million) in damages for illegally downloading 24 songs in a high-profile digital piracy case. Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, a single mother of four from the US state of Minnesota, was found liable for using the Kazaa peer-to-peer file-sharing network to download the songs over the internet. The jury took just under five hours to reach its verdict. It ordered Thomas-Rasset to pay $2.4 million - or $100,000 per song - to six record companies: Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros Records and UMG Recordings.

This is just wrong.


yeah i heard about it at dinner yesterday. like i said earlier, music piracy is about the INDUSTRY not getting the money it wants, not about the artist, as evidenced by her owing money to SIX companies and not one artist....

copyright and "intellectual property" are abused more than they protect.


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:The artists on these labels don't actually own the rights to their own songs. As part of the contract deal ALL RIGHTS are transferred to the label. Now if an artist is clever with their spending and save enough money, they can buy back the rights of their songs but this can often be at the cost of millions, and for many artists, they wont see that money made back in royalties even if they did own the music.

Delete

Mr Majestik
Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Member Since: 9th Mar 2004
Total posts: 4693
Posted:which is why someone previously stated a better way to support an artist is by attending their shows and buying their merch, cause thats where they get most of their money from.

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:worth pointing out;
"The recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling regarding webcasting designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute to all nonmembers as well as its members"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326/870
br>
The RIAA is allowed to take money for totally independent artists. They have literally been allowed to take profit from other peoples' work, and you must pay them for the luxury of getting your money from them.

I'd much prefer people download EVERYTHING or only buy second hand, than ever give a single penny to RIAA or MPAA members. Their practices and business methods have soiled art for a long time, and buying ANYTHING that they can make money from is only hurting the cause.


Delete

Mr Majestik
Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Member Since: 9th Mar 2004
Total posts: 4693
Posted:(that was in 2007, but yeah that is crap)

something a bit more modern; the PPCA (phonographic performance company of australia, basically the eqivilent of the US's RIAA) wants to increase royalty fees in cafes, restaurants, gyms, and clubs by as much as 4729 per cent, as much as 2000 times more than is currently paid. here

Originally Posted By: the age CAFE and restaurant patrons could soon be eating in silence, after a proposal by Australia's largest record labels to increase the cost of background music by up to 2000 times...

The bid by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia, which represents more than 750 record companies, follows a decision by the Copyright Tribunal to approve an increase of 15 times the music costs for the nightclub industry, which was recently endorsed by the Federal Court of Australia...

Buoyed by the nightclub ruling, the PPCA is now targeting eateries. It wants to increase licensing fees in a 120-seat restaurant to $19,344 a year up from $125. Small cafes would be slugged with a 4729 per cent yearly increase from $124 to $5860...

PPCA chief executive Stephen Peach said recorded music attracted patrons to venues and was significantly undervalued. "The rates we have historically charged are barely nominal and we are looking to establish a fair return. The cafe owner just has to ask if the music is worth it, and if it isn't they don't have to play it," he said.

its completely absurd. people dont come to the cafe i work in to sit around listing to the cds we bought, if they did we would kick them out cause YOU DONT MAKE MONEY IN A CAFE FROM PLAYING MUSIC. people go to eateries to eat and drink.


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

aston
aston

Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2007
Total posts: 4061
Posted:That is pretty ridiculous.

I mean, I will avoid a place if I have a choice and I consistently dislike the music they play there, but I have never gone anywhere (this is cafe's and such) because I wanted to listen to the music they play....


'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

Delete

Mr Majestik
Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Member Since: 9th Mar 2004
Total posts: 4693
Posted:personally i think cafes and restaurants shouldnt have to pay anything, as previously mentioned music is not their product. as long as the person who owns or runs the venue has paid for the music legally they should be able to play it as much as they want. if i buy a chair of a copyrighted design do i have to pay the inventor a fee every time someone besides myself sits on it? no. so why the difference with music?

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:This article is quite interesting...

shows that some artists (like Paul McCartney) have to pay for performing their own songs umm


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mr Majestik
Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Member Since: 9th Mar 2004
Total posts: 4693
Posted:Originally Posted By: the mercury thurs 25th June one's a pub classie, belted out at top volume by tipsy patrons, the other is a favourite of youth choirs.
Now, as unlikely as it seems, the childrends ditty "Kookaburra" and the Men At Work hit "Down Under" are set fora court battle amid accusations the rock anthem is a ripoff.
Music publishing company Larrikin owns the Kookaburra song and says the melody that accompanies the line "kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" is reproduced in down under.
But a new battle has erupted, with lawyers for Down Under writers Colin Hay and Ron Strykert, and music giants Sony and EMI claiming Larrikin does not hold the copyright, girl guides australia does.
The story dates back to 1934 when toorak college teacher Marion Sinclair wrote the song for a girl guide jamboree. a year before her death in 1988 she signed over the copyright to the Libraries Board of South Australia and Larrikin bought the right.
Lawyers for the music giants now say it was not ms sinclairs to sell.

...so basically a company with no affiliation to the now deceased original writer of a song in 1934 is claiming a song written in 1981 steals a snippit of sound from the song they own copyright for and now almost 30 years after the act they think they could make money from the accusation.

lesson: copyright is absurd.


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

Page: 12