Author | Message |
Prince & Copyright. Tho this article does not mention Prince, it's gives a good insight why he is so passionate regarding the copyrights of all artists. Many people criticize Prince for the "lack of" u tube videos, and online presence but the fact is these online corporations are cheating artists.
Thoughts?..... On Wednesday, June 5th, ASCAP President and Chairman Paul Williams delivered a powerful keynote to attendees of the CISAC World Creators Summit in DC. He spoke passionately and pointedly about what it means to be a creator in today’s challenging digital environment. Read the full text below. On the previous day of the Summit, ASCAP CEO John LoFrumento participated on a panel called “Visions for the Future – Different Perspectives for the Creative Sector,” which featured leaders from the creative industries discussing their visions for the years ahead. ***** Hello everyone. I'm Paul Williams and I'm a songwriter. I know what it means to be a creator. I know what it means to be engaged in a profession that is fraught with uncertainty. Uncertainty is part of everyone's life, but it is a profound part of the creative life. I face a blank page. Where will the next idea come from, the next song, the next line? Will I be able to make something out of the messiness of life that did not exist before – a song, a piece of music, art? All creators – writers, composers, painters, poets – daily face the uncertainty of a blank page. We dive deep, and come back up to the light of day with a form of expression that, hopefully, will bring meaning or knowledge or joy to those who experience it. It is life-affirming work. Completing something new brings satisfaction to most creators. Then, reality sets in. More uncertainty. Will it get recorded, published, performed? Today, creators can find easy platforms for self-publishing and distribution. But that takes more work and more hustle and more investment in self-marketing. Whatever way our work gets before the public, we're still faced with more uncertainty. Will the days, or months or years of work that led to this piece of art – whatever form it takes – bring success? Will it help me pay the rent? It takes a form of emotional courage to stake one's livelihood on such profound uncertainty. But that's what true creators do. We face uncertainty and we say "yes." We say "yes" I can do this, I will take this chance, because if – and that's a very big "if" – if my work connects with an audience, then I will benefit from the fruits of my creative labor. I will be able to buy shoes for the kids and pay for health insurance. And that's because I live in a democracy that recognizes and protects the value of intellectual property. Copyright is one of the most enlightened concepts to have emerged in the history of ideas. It encourages the creation of new works for the benefit of society by allowing authors to make a living from their creative labor. It is an idea that has proved its worth to every nation that has allowed the expression of its culture to flourish through exclusive rights granted for authorship. Literature, music and art have value to individuals, to businesses and to countries. They open our hearts and minds. They inspire. They teach. They comfort. They drive economic growth and innovation. They define our time; they define our cultures; they bring us together. So then, why are we now in the position of having to defend ourselves against the insidious erosion of the basic principles of copyright in so many parts of the world? Intellectual property rights are a cornerstone of democracy. As a citizen, a creator and a consumer, I should have a reasonable expectation that I live in a society where thieves and outlaws are not allowed to run rampant – even when they are operating in cyberspace. But when lawmakers in North America and Europe tried to enact legislation that would help enforce laws against online fraud and theft, the technology sector said it would break the internet. They called it censorship. Creators are in the business of free expression. Freedom of speech is about political speech, it is not about protecting fraud or theft. They trivialized what free speech means. Forces that want to control and diminish the value of our work for their own economic benefit are systematically attacking the rights of creators. They are methodically attacking the validity of copyright laws. They are building their businesses in a way that makes enforcement of our copyrights next to impossible. The hope that creative work will pay off for the author, composer, filmmaker or photographer if it becomes successful is no longer a given. Fair payment has become another profound uncertainty in the professional life of every creator. This is true for people at the top of their game, and especially so for those just starting out. This is true globally – not just in the United States, in Canada, in the European Union – all over the world. Some have argued, wrongly, that copyright stifles innovation. Copyright is the very definition of innovation. Copyright is the main driver of technical innovation – because people want access to great pieces of art, literature and music. Unfortunately, these arguments have resulted in legal decisions that are depleting copyright protections and sanctioning unfair business models that hurt authors. I urge all of you to read Scott Turow's editorial in the New York Times, titled "The Slow Death of the American Author." It was triggered by the Supreme Court decision allowing the importation and resale of foreign editions of American works, at cheaper prices. Which brings me to my next point. Wikipedia shut down for a day as a form of protest. Wikipedia could make their point to millions of people with one keystroke. They could say "no" to providing their service to everyone. Yet, we as creators have no opportunity to say "no." We cannot say "no" to infringing use of our works in any effective and meaningful way. We stand by as search engines make money from search and from advertising on illegal pirate sites. But it goes beyond piracy and it goes beyond the ineffectiveness of take-down notices as a way to enforce our rights. In the online streaming world, songwriters and composers are being grossly underpaid for the music we write. Webcasters are rapidly becoming the preferred way people listen to music. Pandora alone – with 70% of the U.S. streaming market – just reported a 55% jump in revenues while creators are becoming impoverished – step-by-step. Even a major hit song streamed millions of times earns its songwriters so little, they couldn't hope to sustain a livelihood. All we are asking for is honest pay for honest work. ASCAP, and I'm sure all of the collective rights groups at this conference, want to work with the digital platforms that depend on our music. We want to partner for our mutual benefit. We have successfully found our way with every new technology and delivery platform that has ever been invented – from radio to TV to cable to satellite. And we want to get there with all online streaming platforms. But, we cannot accept payment that is so pitifully low as to be exploitative. Fair compensation in the online streaming market is probably the most pressing priority for performing rights organizations, both in the U.S. and abroad. The future of our livelihoods as creators will depend upon whether we can find global solutions that allow streaming business models to thrive without leaving us out in the cold. We have some unique challenges in the U.S. with laws that have the effect of constraining our efforts. But we are actively engaged in finding ways to overcome these challenges on behalf of creators the world over. As PROs, we share this mission. We must continue our work together internationally to find a way forward that makes sense for digital platforms, and that ensures fair payment to songwriters, composers and copyright owners. Creative works give soul to the machines. When our works are the engine driving huge profits for big businesses, we should expect to be treated justly and paid fairly. Creators need copyright protection and we need to be able to enforce our rights, especially when mega-corporations are exploiting them for profit. As a member of the creative community, I am heartened to see that more and more of us are finding the courage to stand up and speak out. And it takes a lot of courage to speak out. It take courage for the many songwriters and artists who've risked the ire of the cyber-bullies when they've stood up for their right to be paid, or for their right to decide if and how they want to give their music away. All of us have to open our eyes a little wider, and we have to speak the truth a little louder. Whether we are songwriters, authors, photographers or filmmakers, we are part of the same family and we have to have each other's backs. I am also encouraged that some lawmakers are courageous enough to stand up for creators' rights. We need their courage. Here in the U.S., we applaud the many Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees who continue to support creators' rights. We applaud the recent creation of the Creative Rights Caucus, and the continued good work of the Congressional Songwriters Caucus. We applaud people like our next speaker, John Morton, who is doing important work at ICE. They understand that copyright is a human right. It is about the right to express yourself freely. It is about the right to choose what happens with your creative work. It is about the right – not the privilege – the right, to share in the economic benefits of the work you do. Protecting creative rights is the moral and ethical thing to do for all citizens. We are not against technological innovation. We are innovators and we embrace new ways to bring our creations to as many people as possible. We embrace innovation that allows the creative professions to thrive along with the businesses that provide new platforms for distributing our works. Platforms designed to depress the value of our work are not innovative. They are exploitative. They exploit creative labor for their own selfish gain. I want the next generation of creators – who will face the profound uncertainty of a blank page – to have this certainty… That life as a professional is possible. That if their works become successful, driving profits for others, they too will be able to share in that success. That they, too, will be able to put food on the table and put their kids through college – as I have been lucky enough to do. That they too will have the economic security to make the creation of exciting new works their full-time profession. The future of the creative profession is at stake. I don't want to live in a world that only recycles the great works of art and literature and music from the past. I don't want to live in a world where the only new works of art are made by hobbyists in their spare time. All we ask is that we are treated justly and paid fairly. All we ask is that our own governments and courts remember that authors' rights need to be at the very center of every discussion about copyright. The U.S. Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante has called for an overhaul of our Copyright Laws. Let's hope that what we end up with are revisions that strengthen the incentives for creators in today's world. We need to be able to enforce our rights and we need to be able to earn fair market value for our works. It's that simple. In her own remarks, Maria quoted the Supreme Court in saying: "The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author's creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." If the creative professions cannot thrive, the world will be the poorer for it. I've had a good ride. That's why I'm so passionate above giving the next generation a chance. I think about the young mother writing the next great novel at the kitchen table or composing music at a keyboard with headphones on while her baby's sleeping in the next room. Let's deliver the future to her. [Edited 6/15/13 8:59am] Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I started blanking out about halfway through. It's the same garbage argument that's has been passed around for the past decade. . As if success for a musician was once guaranteed before the internet (it wasn't) and the only way they'll be able to eek out a living as a musician is by horribly lopsided legislation (it's not) . The wiki example is one of the worst. Yeah, they took their site down but guess what? But all of wikipedia is under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. That means I could copy all the articles from wikipedia I want, republish them on my site and I won't get sued if Wikipedia decides to be dicks for one day by pulling down their site (Prince, I'm looking at you when you put up free videos and DMCA anybody who tries to mirror it) . If you dislike the profit sharing with Pandora and the like - pull your content, get as many artists together as possible and start your own service. Oh wait, you still won't be getting megarich off of it and you'll have the added headache of maintaining it (look at Hulu as an example) . The point is, we're in a different world. All the legislation and stupid propaganda word games won't change that. tonight the stars are out
there's music in the air the sounds of joy and celebration are drowning out despair | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Wrong forum? "I mean I always figured you were a trip at times, but now I'm beginning to believe you're a freaking vacation." -2elijah | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
hahahahahahaha Love God and I shall 4ever Love u | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CocoRock said: My bad. Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moderator moderator |
That is one heck of a long speech. Half way through my eyes were starting to glaze over Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture! REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince "I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
a prince news a day, keeps the doctor away | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Modern attention spams are in decline. That is a fact that is not to be laughed about. It's a shame!
The core of the matter is that 'reform' of copyright law makes it even worse for the end users. The copyright lobby will make sure that it happens that way.
The entity that calls itself USA is corrupt beyond repair: The copyright lobby made the authorities perform the illegal takedown of megaupload. There's still no case, nor a basis for a case w.r.t that matter. There is only a basis for a case for compensation of megaupload and Kim DotCom by the evil American and other foreign authorities for the damage done. Of course that won't happen. This evil situation is not mentioned in the MSM so the public can remain in their sleep.
See http://Kim.com/whitepaper.pdf for the story in more detail. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I've read the speech to the end, no problem The speaker conflates two related issues that require different approaches: 1. Copyright infringement through illegal downloading and file sharing by private individuals. 2. Fair compensation for creative work by legally operating entities such as music streaming sites and book publishers. ...every night another symphony... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
luv4u said:
That is one heck of a long speech. Half way through my eyes were starting to glaze over Mine too. I did finish it, but the author started to repeat himself, so you didn't miss much. I do agree that authors/artists should be properly payed, but I don't know enough about copyright laws to know who's right. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As copyright terms have only been extend and extended since copyrigth law came into being you now know who is rentseeking. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: CocoRock said: My bad. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
- [Edited 6/18/13 7:14am] [Edited 6/18/13 7:16am] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
why haven't i seen this before?! That could only be better if it used princebonics. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The epitome of the dumbification of the 'merican people. It ain't funny, it ain't cool. It shows in the non-impeachments, the non-reports, the non-action, etc. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I read it, and Paul Williams is spot-on. If you think he's wrong, go try and make a living as a recording artist and see how far you get. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Actually, it's DAMN funny. Kinda like someone getting on their high-horse and responding to said funniness with a (most likely unironical) post featuring words that don't exist. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You mention stuff that I did not argue about and you forget the words in the picture. The general laziness when it comes to cognitive functions is frightening. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Amen to that!
It is so easy for people to dismiss having to pay for music just because you can download it for free, but would you be pleased if your boss or customers wouldn't pay you anymore for your products or services??? I don't think so.
Artists deserve a payment for the use of their works, just like anyone else gets paid for their work.
RIP Prince: thank U 4 a funky Time... | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't know WTF that first part means, but the words in the picture I "forgot" are the reason for the picture, hence the comedic value that seems to be lost on you.
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I agree. Artists should be able to get entire sites pulled down at their whim with the burden of proof on the site owner. While we're at it, let's let them destroy emerging businesses in the name of control and profit... ... wait a second, that would be fucking retarded. . Does nobody remember the entertainment industry fighting literally every new advancement throughout their entire existance? . .
Get with the times or get out the way! [Edited 6/18/13 15:16pm] tonight the stars are out
there's music in the air the sounds of joy and celebration are drowning out despair | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Which implies? That it's all good what your puppet leaders put onto you? That they tell you all you need to know?
You may need to think a bit more critically every now and then.
Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I did not see that in the words, as it looked like english to me. I see the times as what they put onto us, not as what we make it to be. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nope, I do not think so. Not in the `modern` traditional sense. I do not make music although I could claim copyright on some music related stuff. I do not write (as in books etc). I do not paint, draw, design. Most stuff I release is `as is`. Sorta creative commons.
So the only recognised valuable assets I own are physical. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ridiculous. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sure. To a certain extent. I do not need protection of my supposed copyright for absurd lengths of time. I will save for my pension from my income. My children can take care of themselves. Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |