...






I hope he will grant them a license to release lots of original Vault tracks, including those that have never been released on bootlegs before, unedited, and live performances from his entire carreer, unedited.

And if it is true that he is in negotiations with Time Warner to get the copyrights to (some) of the old master recordings back, I hope they will have him agree to leave the recordings intact/ unedited, forever.

And if all that really happens I hope they will not decide to put all kinds of dreadful copy protection measures and / or ridiculous prices on them.


--
[This message was edited Tue Feb 10 8:17:18 PST 2004 by Abrazo]

Abrazo said:

If we lived in a world where people respected artists' property rights, copy protection wouldn't be necessary.

Unfortunatley, we live in a world where an artist invites his most ardent fans from all over the world to his compound for an intimate musical celebration and some folks want to start stuffung their pockets with his shit.

Oh, well.

Independent or major label, I don't care. I just want mo' music, mo' music, mo' music whenever he's ready.

OneMoJam said:

Alas the world is not that simple.

If you believe most artists make a living by selling CD's I'm afraid you are wrong.

If you believe copy protection measures will stop unauthorised copying I'm afraid you are also wrong.

But if you believe copy protection measures will diminish music sales even further you are probably right.

We live in a world where copy protection measures won't stop the unauthorised copying. What it does do is frustrate music lovers who simply wish to excercise their legal fair use and property rights (Cd's/ DVD's/files). Copy protected CD's don't work on many CD players (eg in the car) and they make pc's crash, while also preventing the lawfull making of personal use copies.

If we lived in a world where music copyright owners would actually respect the fair use and property rights of music lovers (CD's/ files) with the kind of copy protection and legal measures they take more people would perhabs actually start to respect the copyright. But as it is the owner of a CD may not even circumvent the copy protection measure if he wants to make a copy for personal use.


--
[This message was edited Tue Feb 10 12:30:57 PST 2004 by Abrazo]

Abrazo said:

I used to be married to a musician, so I know enough to speculate that we probably can generally agree on your first point. As for your second point, there is no law enforcement regime (outside of North Korea, perhaps) that can completely stop unathorized activity. I don't subscribe to the notion that if you can't stop all crime, don't try to stop any of it.

On your third point, there are a whole host of factors contributing to the decline of music sales. A significant fator has got to be the relative ease with which copies can now be made and shared by means that don't involve the original distributor. I've yet to see a comprehensive study of the issue. People seeking to rationalize file sharing are attracted to the asertion that diminished "legitimate" sales are solely or primarily a response to security counter-measures. The appeal of such an assertion seems transparently rooted in something other than fact or in addition to fact.


We live in a world where rapid technological change allows easy abuse of property rights and results in imperfect counter-measures by artists to protect their interests. These counter-measures can result in a diminution of the opportunities for "fair use." In the absence of technological safegaurds and a reliance primarily on people's honor, "fair use" was pretty expansive. As safegaurds against abuse are embedded into the art delivery device, our ability to do everthing we used to do honorably diminshes. I liked the way it used to be, but c'est la vie. Things change. Times change. Flowers get trampled by elephants every day. I love flowers and I've got nothing against elephants.

None of this matters one billionth as much as the fact that the most powerful nation in the world is being led by an illegitimately elected boob. While Rome burns, we're discussing the fact that the price of our favorite candy has gone up.

Unfortunately, many other people respect copyright laws only to the extent that they feel pressured by authority to do so. We slow down when we see a radar trap and we speed when we think we can get away with it. And we hate it when the cops step up enforcement in response to all of our speeding. I liked the old "radar-free" days, but they're gone.

P.S. The apology was very gracious but completely unnecessary. After recent events, it's refreshing to see civility rear its ugly again around here!

OneMoJam said:

I used to work for an artist union and I have seen lots of musicians contracts first hand. The vast majority of artists don't own their copyrights and hardly make a dime on the sales of their CD's. Since we can agree on this, I take it you could also agree that the use of the term "artist's property rights" in this respect is a bit misleading, as well as asserting that filesharing is stealing the bread from artists.


Me neither (and I didn't say that btw). However, I don't subscribe either to the notion that if you have a way of enforcing your rights it's okay to make the excercise of the rights of others impossible. That's abusing your own rights. Plus, I believe that enforcement of rights in this way works counter productive, frustrating music lovers and causing sales to decline even further.


You are right, there are a whole host of factors contributing to the decline of music sales and the relative ease with which copies can now be made and shared is certainly one of them.

However, I don't believe that it is the most important factor. Since recording equipment has made its way into households people have been able to copy music with relative ease. Yet, ultimately sales did not drop due to those technologies. You probably remember the 60's and 70's when the cassette player and VCR caused a technological revolution. Millions started "hometaping" back then and the music and movie industry were immediately saying it was the biggest massive form of copyright infringement ever taking place, cutting deep into their sales. Just like they are saying now. And just like then the industry first blames and sues everyone around them, waiting for years (way too long) before it gives a positive spin to the new technology and embraces the new opportunities. The renting and sale of video and music cassettes turned out to be one of the biggest sources of income for the industry in the 80's and 90's. The industry's worst technological nightmare became a pleasant dream.

Further, many people don't share files just to never buy CD's anymore, but instead to try new songs out and if they really like them they buy the CD. Many really prefer CD quality with a booklet than a lousy low quality MP3 file. That's definitly the promotional factor of filesharing. Yet, it's no wonder many ultimately don't buy the CD when there is only one good song on it and the CD costs 20-25 $ or € .

I believe the most important reason for the current decline in sales is the lack of respect people in general have developed, not for copyright itself or artists, but for the entire industry/ the system itself. Most people realise the system is corrupt and most artists hardly get paid (except for the already rich and famous artists). Coupled to that there is the lack of good new artists making good new music and the absurd prices that keep on rising (in most countries anyway), while the RIAA sues 12 year old girls and innocent grannies who hardly did anything wrong for sharing a file or two. In many respects the industry has itself to thank for the decline in respect and consequently the decline in sales.

Another very important factor is that today's youth has lots more to choose for their entertainment. They now spend their dollars on mobile phones, DVD's and video games instead on music. Since they can only spend their money once and filesharing is so easy and cheap, it's logical that sales further decline. Therefore the music industry needs to find a way to make their products more attractive to buy. It needs to compete much more seriously with the mobile phone, DVD and video game industry. However, it doesn't seem capable of doing that. It never had the need to adapt to consumer's wishes which made it arrogant. It never realised that the constant rise in the prices of CD's made music consumers picky and frustrated. They are greedy, massive and slow corporate machines who still live in the analogue age, incapable of changing their businesses rapidly.


That wasn't my point. Copy protection measures aren't a reason for file sharing, but they are a reason for people to have even less respect for the industry and thereby also their copyrights.


They not only can and not only diminish fair use oppurtunities. In today's practice practically all copy protection counter measures make fair use impossible. Plus these kind of measures even make the free listening to a CD often impossible (e.g. the cd player in your car) and often cause damage to consumer's property (e.g. crashed pc's). On top of that the industry made sure new laws have been adopted (the DMCA in the US) that prohibit the circumvention of these technological measures, totally making fair use impossible AND illegal.


That's an easy way of justifying the abolishment of very important societal user rights. Don't forget that fair use is not only to the advantage of consumers. It's to the advantage of all users of material protected by copyright, for example: the scientific community. When scientists can no longer excercise their fair use rights, the progress of science will be stifled. When consumers can't either, the balance between copyright and user rights is lost.

Further, I love my rights. I know users had to fight hard for these very limited fair use rights to be acknowledged, but now the copyright industries are trying to take it away with new technology and new draconical laws. I don't have to bleed for the wrongdoing of others and I have just as much right to expect my rights to be honoured as the artists have, or better yet: the copyright owning multinational music companies.


Relatively speaking it's of course not so bad and serious what we are discussing. But picture this: If I choose to circumvent the copy protection on the CD I bought (making the CD MY property) and the copyright owner finds that out, he can already sue me for just the circumvention, even if I only did that to make a copy for my personal use, which is lawful. That's the world the copyright industry wants us to live in. It's not futuristical, but a reality.

So how can they have the right to sue me for doing that? Because of the new laws made due to the copyright industry demands. However, the only way for the copyright owner to enforce his new rights is to spy on me in my home making sure I am not circumventing the copy protection. That of course is an infringement of my privacy. How is that balancing intellectual property rights with user rights? It's not. In this scenario, which is not far from the reality, copyright owners are seeking to impose, not only my fair use and property rights are infringed by the copyright owner, but also my privacy rights. In short: that is totally wrong.


I agree with that. But I believe that therefore the incentives for people to infringe copyright should be taken away first. That means: the industry needs to reform, better music must be made structurally, prices must go down substantially, new consumer attractive models of selling CD's must be developed rapidly, P2P filesharing must be embraced and legalised (provided the copyright owners are paid a reasonable fee of course), copy protection measures must respect fair use, privacy and property rights, sueing music lovers for filesharing must cease and people (especially the youth) must be educated that it's cool to legally collect your music and respect copyright.




--
[This message was edited Wed Feb 11 2:56:22 PST 2004 by Abrazo]