Calling All Copyright Criminals
What promises to be a superb documentary on musical sampling, copyright law and their effects on creativity will see its official launch in January 2010. No harm in taking an early preview though.
Copyright Criminals: This Is a Sampling Sport is an upcoming documentary which examines the creative and commercial aspects of musical sampling, and I am personally really looking forward to this one.
A major component of the documentary is the effect copyright law has on creativity and, of course, how good old-fashioned greed and money come into play. If you happen to like hip-hop too, thats a real bonus, but not a necessity by any means.
The documentary will ask a critical question:
Is it possible to own a sound?
Copyright Criminals will have a general release in January 2010, but an early free preview is available if you’re near The Rotunda (40th and Walnut) in Philadelphia this upcoming Tuesday October 20th at 19:00.
I’m going to assume this movie isn’t going to get an open release. Irony.
“The Rotunda (40th and Walnut)” seems to be in philadelphia. would be a good idea to mention that imho ;)
FB: Sure, i’ll add it in :)
A computer file is just a really, really long string of number represented digitally (0 or 1), so the new question would be, is it possible to own the rights to a number?
“This is my number, no one else can use it!”
@Truther
I expect a remix would be fine, in small sample-sized sections ;)
Sounds interesting. Thanks for writing.
sweetness, cant wait to watch it.
Nice. More movies about us.
http://Pirlog.com
Is it possible to own a sound?
If you mean an unique sequence like what we think music is, then of course.
Bad question, the real question is should someone have the right to make money off of his labor? If the answer is yes, then we have to figure out ways for people to make money off of their creations. Why should music, movies, or software be any different than drugs, machinery, or materials, all of which can be patented?
The copyright system is the best way to allow people to make money from what they’ve created in music, movies, etc. Those who want to steal don’t seem to have any better ideas, they pretty much just say too bad, find another way to make money or do something else like perform. Well it costs money to rent a space and get the equipment there, or rent it plus travel and hotel costs. Not everyone is a mega superstar that can afford limos, what if I can’t draw enough people in an area, but worldwide I can make $50,000 a year with 50,000 downloads, a modest living? What if I don’t like to perform, I get nervous and am horrible in front of people but I can still create great music? What if I create music that doesn’t depend on human voice? This is only for music, how are you going to make money off of a film if everyone has already pirated it and seen it? Yeah, no solutions by the thieves, just ridiculous “I want it so I deserve it” reasoning.
People need to make a living, not everyone gets rich from music, hardly, but everyone should have a right to their work, their labor. Steal his labor and he’s nothing more than a slave, begging master for a handout every once in a while.
“Bad question, the real question is should someone have the right to make money off of his labor?”
The answer in an absolute and resounding NO. No one is entitled to a profit if they make a product. That is fundamental economics. Otherwise, supply would be arbitrary and demand would be constant, which is NOT the case. On the other hand, everyone is entitled (has the right) to ask a price for a product. Unfortunately, right of first sale does not always apply to licenses granted via copyright. Right of first sale DOES, however, apply to the sale and distribution of any physical media that retains the copyrighted works (i.e. you own a CD but not the rights to the music on it). The issue of digital piracy now is whether or not you have the right to distribute a product with essentially no finite physical form which retains an unlicensed copyright protected work (an “unauthorized” copy), which is abstract as there is no recorded contract of licensure between a consumer and copyright owner as far as redistribution of an inherently mobile product with an unenforceable restriction of its mobility.
“If the answer is yes, then we have to figure out ways for people to make money off of their creations. Why should music, movies, or software be any different than drugs, machinery, or materials, all of which can be patented?
I’ll reiterate, the answer is definitely no. That said, assuming someone is indeed entitled to a profit from a product, there would need to be protective measures to ensure compliance, which brings up the concept of DRM, or digital rights management. DRM is a direct result of failure to operate a business in a manner consistent with surviving a free market. Instead of seeing the demand go elsewhere and providing a supply in the new market on vastly superior distribution platforms (P2P amongst others), businesses expecting profit without responding to their respective markets are implementing arbitrary and artificial restrictions on the market they are still a part of, further driving the demand elsewhere. This suicidal cycle has thus far only been slowed by additional artificial restrictions via what should be perceived as blatant and vicious abuses of the legal system. Legislating or forcibly extracting profit as a tax, settlement, or award of damages is predictably the last artificial form of “consumer” left to maintain the entitled profits and will fail in the same way the “.com bubble” did. When that last resource collapses, the market that is currently shrinking, despite the idea that mandated profits cause demand, will vanish and will take all of the entitled profits with it.
As far as people making money, many businesses (individuals included) are doing just fine. They are responding to the demand present in their respective markets and receiving the resulting profits without the need to artificially create them.
The real problem with methods such as DRM is that they punish consumers actually in a business’s market and drive demand away. Instead of adding value that increases demand, DRM removes that value. In fact, failure to listen to consumers, even when/after asking their opinion, seems to be the hallmark of perceived entitlement of profits.
“The copyright system is the best way to allow people to make money from what they’ve created in music, movies, etc. Those who want to steal don’t seem to have any better ideas, they pretty much just say too bad, find another way to make money or do something else like perform. Well it costs money to rent a space and get the equipment there, or rent it plus travel and hotel costs. Not everyone is a mega superstar that can afford limos, what if I can’t draw enough people in an area, but worldwide I can make $50,000 a year with 50,000 downloads, a modest living? What if I don’t like to perform, I get nervous and am horrible in front of people but I can still create great music? What if I create music that doesn’t depend on human voice? This is only for music, how are you going to make money off of a film if everyone has already pirated it and seen it? Yeah, no solutions by the thieves, just ridiculous “I want it so I deserve it” reasoning.”
Many applicable points to this paragraph were already made above. This is yet again an example of entitlement to profits not working in a real market. Even though consumers persist in letting businesses know they want a different product (as in pointing out that businesses are driving the demand into a different market and that they should meet that demand with a supply of new products) many businesses retaliate to the notion that they are not entitled to profits (the root of most arguments given) with the outrageous concept that unless the consumer does the work of creating a new product and hands it over the consumer does not have the right to participate in a competing market. Simply put, the burden of creating a product is on the business and not the consumer; a business is not entitled to a share of a new market because it is competing or new. If a consumer creates a new product, that consumer IS entitled to the right to provide supply to demand in the real market. If the demand is very low that new business fails, again, an introductory economics concept.
“People need to make a living, not everyone gets rich from music, hardly, but everyone should have a right to their work, their labor. Steal his labor and he’s nothing more than a slave, begging master for a handout every once in a while.”
Right, people do need to earn a living, but by participating in and responding correctly to the real market their participating in as a business. Wrong, businesses (people) who FAIL to provide sufficient value to sustain the demand in their real market should absolutely expect to see themselves begging for handouts as they have not responded to the distinct lack of demand by providing the needed value or changing markets. The real world changes and people (businesses) should not expect it stop for them as they will very quickly discover their profits disappearing and someone else taking their place.
It seems to me that most people that are involved in any industry that turns a profit are against change. The first people that work out how to properly harness the power of file sharing will be rich. You cant stand in the way of change and those that adapt to the technology will be the winners. There is a lot of indirect money that could be harnessed if people would realise that this thing cannot be stopped and needs to be worked through to be able to turn profits. The AFTERS (australian film television and radio school) published lectures on the possibilities of harnessing bittorrent for profitable use.
People of today do not want to keep doing things the way it has always been done. We are past the times when it took 10 minutes to transfer a written page over the fax and businesses need to harness the technology available to them and turn it to work for themselves. Or they can go the way of the carrier pigeon companise of yesteryear.
I am happy to pay for what I use, Please distribute it in a format that suits me and you can have the cash.
Go Caroling this Christmas! Get fined or jailed for Copyright Infringement!
i sure wish i could get the unpleasant, genocidal radio show about me and my family taken down. i suppose if someone put up a rant by the KKK or the neo-nazis, we’d just have to deal with it. since when did half-baked radio jokes about my mother killing me in the crib become “just my opinion” and “just a string of ones and zeros”. the rationalizations are lame kindergarten-level denials. nothing is ever your fault, no matter who gets hurt. those people aren’t YOUR family, after all. plus, people with Down syndrome are the members of society who have the least power, so who cares, right? peace, and lots of luck.
Xenomancer, you seem to answer my question of SHOULD a person have a right to make money off of his labor with a discussion of how things ARE currently. You start off ok, but then quickly get into legal definitions along with the various negative enforcement methods copyright owners use that you (and most users) don’t like. You don’t quite explain WHY a person who creates a non-tangible good like a movie or music, isn’t entitled to sell licenses to view or hear the product he created.
The license can be transferable, if you buy a song, you are buying a license since the song itself doesn’t tangibly exist. Now you can sell your license to a friend or a store, but that would mean you no longer have a license to use that product. Do you agree with this? We can get into practical and real world considerations later, but we can’t go further unless philosophical differences are resolved or at least stated. Based on your post, I can only surmise that you are against allowing creators of intangible goods the exclusive right to sell what they’ve created. Whether it is in the form of CDs or licenses to use, a buyer SHOULD be able to sell what they’ve bought in the secondary market (as that would be logically consistent with my view) but that means they give up their right to use the product.
Your complaints about DRM and other preventive measures can be addressed, they can be removed to all you complete freedom of use. These are all technical matters that can be resolved, but what cannot be reconciled is if you think that you should be able to use and obtain benefit from someone else’s work without compensating the creator. If this is indeed what you think, I’d like to know the logical reasons for your position and your views on the potential consequences now that we are moving to a post-modern world that produces intangible goods rather than tangible materials.