I suspect that by the time this post appears, there will be many April Fool’s jokes fluttering around the Internet, but rest assured, all the following links are to actual stories.

Game on! Viacom, YouTube briefs on file in 2nd Circuit — The popular video site submitted its appellate brief yesterday. Shades of Gray has links to the document, as well as Viacom’s opening brief and the numerous amici briefs filed in the case.

There is no two without three: Bill C-32 is Dead — Late last week, the Canadian government dissolved, along with the latest attempt at reforming the country’s copyright law. IP Osgoode takes a look at the decade-plus effort to modernize the Copyright Act and implement changes needed under WIPO treaties, as well as what the future will hold after elections.

The Value of the Village — The Copyright Alliance blog discusses self-publishing superstar Amanda Hocking’s recent move to traditional publishing. “Having a variety of options as an emerging artist is great. But just as Ms. Hocking discovered, there is more to being a successful novelist than just the writing.”

Music Recommendation Engines Not Satisfying Fans — A new survey shows that music recommendation still has a long way to go before it’s ready for prime time. That much hasn’t changed since 2009, when researcher Paul Lamere gave his excellent talk on why music recommendation systems aren’t working, Help! My iPod thinks I’m emo. Meanwhile, MIT’s Technology Review reports on Myna, the music recommendation engine currently in development by the commissioners of the survey. I thought this part was particularly funny: “Music discovery, after all, is littered with media that aggregate the opinions of insufferable young people.”

The P2P Rebellion: Are Copyrights the Vietnam of Today’s Youth — The always entertaining Moses Avalon compares the P2P crusade against “Big Content” to the 60’s youth opposition to the Vietnam War. One notable difference between the two: “At the heart of the anti-war movement was the hope to stop bloodshed. Hippies rebelled against something serious– the draft. What is today’s P2P “sharing” movement about? Free tunes? Cheaper flicks?”

$100k appraisal for single page of original art from Frank Miller’s Dark Knight comic book — Heritage Auctions estimates the iconic image from one of comicdom’s most esteemed series will bring over six figures at auction. The full image of the page is quite amazing to see if, like me, you consider yourself a fan of comics. I especially like the inkwork of Klaus Janson and found this interesting interview of him for Comic Foundry magazine from 2005, in which he expounds on art, storytelling, and the comics industry over the past several decades.

Billboard’s Twitter 140 — Finally, for all of you on Twitter, Billboard.biz shares its list of some of the most influential and informative Tweeters in the music industry.

If you have any stories, articles, blog posts, upcoming events, or anything else you think would interest Copyhype readers, drop me a line on the contact page. Hope everyone enjoys their weekend!

48 Comments

  1. “What is today’s P2P “sharing” movement about?”

    “Free tunes? Cheaper flicks?” – if you’re a cynical, but devout copyrightist, you can comfort yourself with that aspersion.

    It’s actually about liberty – man’s primordial freedom to share and build upon his own culture.

    The only people intent on paying artists as little as possible are the incumbent publishing corporations – the copyright cartel. The audience on the other hand is generous to the artists it likes, it’s just that today there’s very little means of an audience paying anything without the lion’s share ending up in the pocket of someone other than the artist. It will take time for the copyright based revenue mechanisms to die out and become replaced by far more economic disintermediated ones.

    • “It’s actually about liberty – man’s primordial freedom to share and build upon his own culture.”

      /insert jack-off emoticon here

      piracy != liberty

      The newest books, videogames, films, and music are not YOUR culture. You had no hand in creating any of them. You didn’t put the work in so you have no right to the resulting creation without paying for it. Didn’t you mother ever tell you the story of “The Ant and the Grasshopper”?

      What a crackpot.

  2. Yadda, yadda, copyright bad, Internet will set us free.

    Seriously, Crosbie, do you actually take five seconds to think about what you write or does it simply flow from the part of your brain that is set on automatic ‘reject copyright’ mode?

    I’ve just about had enough of what passes for ‘debate’ from the anti-copyright crowd. In case you haven’t noticed, there are now countless options for releasing recorded music outside the traditional recording industry. If an artist chooses to go down any of those routes, directing their audience from their web properties to the retail options is simplicity itself. So, how has music spending changed over the past few years again?

    You would be making at least a bit of sense if people actually cared about who takes what. The majority of music fans haven’t the foggiest idea about what the revenue splits between the artist and their business partners – which are by no means obvious and differ greatly between contracts – and don’t give a flying flip. Even if they did know, just how does not paying the business partner justify not paying the artist?

    No. The reason people don’t pay for music is that they don’t want to and can get away with it.

    I might be more forgiving, if I thought you actually had an idea of what “more economic disintermediated” models might be introduced, but it’s clear that you don’t, because you don’t understand where the intermediation comes from. The intermediation isn’t a feature of copyright but of market efficiency – even in the pirate markets you have intermediaries who help you find what you are looking for and – guess what – they’re making money doing this. The main reason piracy is such a huge problem right now is the existence of these intermediaries – peer-to-peer exchange requires finding the right people to swap betweent and your normal acquaintances only take you so far. So how exactly is removing copyright supposed to foster disintermediation?

    One thing that copyright does assure is that the artist has a right to demand payment for the use of her works. So riddle me this: if we get rid of this right are people going to:
    a. be more willing to pay for the use of the artist’s works?
    b. be less willing to pay for the use of the artist’s works?

    Hint: Since a right is only as good as its enforceability, we can use the example of the Internet where obtaining music illegally is practically risk-free as a benchmark of how the world would evolve without copyright.

    Come back when you’ve learned not to insult our intelligence.

    Sorry about ranting on your blog, Terry, feel free to delete this comment.

    • And during that entire rant, I fail to see how you’ve laid out how exactly copyright is supposed to pay the artist through an intermediary, when the artist can learn to do it themselves.

      “So riddle me this: if we get rid of this right are people going to:
      a. be more willing to pay for the use of the artist’s works?
      b. be less willing to pay for the use of the artist’s works?”

      a. Aren’t they just going to move on instead?
      b. Aren’t there other forms of compensation?

      The conversation should be focused on where copyright is failing to compensate. It shouldn’t be focused on attacking people by saying their argument is somehow a supposed appeal to tradition.

    • No one should be willing to pay for the use of an artist’s published work. It is only the privilege of copyright that has created the idea in IP maximalists’ minds that use should be chargeable – it was after all originally only about a monopoly in manufacture of copies – not how people used them.

      The current and inexorable dissolution of copyright fosters disintermediation because the publishing corporation, having lost its monopoly, is no longer able to offer an attractive fraction of its ever decreasing monopoly rent in exchange for the copyright arising in the artist’s work that it thus exploits.

      As we should see increasingly happening, the less traditional artists, instead of selling the copyright for ever fewer peanuts, sell their intellectual work to their interested audience (interested in the production/commission of that work) directly. This, after all, is the dimensionally correct exchange: work for money, money for work. It is not money for liberty (copyright’s annulling of the right to copy in the majority).

      If you don’t/cannot believe copyright is coming to an end, then yes, everything I’ve said is heresy/bunk, and file-sharing is simply delinquency to be remedied by more appropriate enforcement.

      All I can help to do is explain why copyright is coming to an end (why it should thus be abolished), and how artists can make financial exchanges with their audiences without the benefit of an 18th century privilege (no longer effective/enforceable).

      • Nanker Phelge

        Crosbie,

        This post sounded interesting. Can you write an English version?

      • Crosbie Fitch seems to believe (or pretends to believe) that artists who sell their work directly to the public (which is what I think he means by ‘disintermediation’) do not need copyright protection.

        Utter bilge, which proves that CF is incapable of logical thought. How, in his dream world, does an artist prevent the first person who buys his work ‘directly’ from copying it to the whole world?

        • I doubt that’s the question. It seems to be the question is cutting out the middleman and finding new ways to gain audiences.

          • That may be *your* question, but it isn’t mine. There is no point in ‘cutting out the middleman’ if the ‘customers’ don’t pay you a penny. 100% of diddly-squat is diddly-squat.

        • Bear in mind that it is only immortal publishing corporations (manufacturers of copies) who are concerned to prevent infringement of their decreasingly effective, multi-century monopoly on manufacture & sale of copies.

          Artists (in the business of selling art – once to publishers, now direct to their audiences) aren’t in the business of selling copies, but in the business of selling art. Thus, if their audience freely promotes them, and covers the cost of manufacturing copies and distribution (BitTorrent), then all the better – they don’t need to pay a CD duplicator nor a promoter. All the artist needs to do is to sell their art. So the last thing they’re interested in is enforcing an 18th century privilege to annul their fans’ right to copy their art once they’ve sold it.

          If an artist sells a recorded studio performance to 1,000 fans (at $10 each), and makes the recording available via BitTorrent, why are they going to be worried (as a vendor of copies would be) about that recording being subsequently copied? They’ve got their $10,000. Unlike a publishing corporation, they don’t need a monopoly to extract ten or a hundred times that amount of revenue in order to cover profligate overheads.

          The people are rediscovering their cultural liberty. This tide that is eroding copyright is not to be undone by argument or Canutian edict. The solution for commerce is not to believe it can be held back, but to understand that the exchange of art for money does not need to be expressed in terms of copies at monopoly protected prices. Art takes skill and talent, is valuable and expensive. Copies are something we get computers to do for nothing.

          The market for copies has ended. The market for art continues.

          • What a crock of shit. “Cultural liberty”? Jesus…

            Kickstarter-style funding will never be as efficient or lucrative as the business of copies. The business of copies is the best thing to ever happen to artists.

            There is no logical reason why the “natural right” to property should not extend to copyrights which are very obviously a form of property.

            You abuse the word “liberty” with whorish abandon.

            Piracy != liberty

  3. You have no examples and yet you’re saying customers aren’t paying… I’m apt not to believe you.

    • Fortunately, some ‘customers’ do still have the decency to pay, so all is not lost. But if copyright laws were abandoned completely (as you advocate) there would be a tipping point where people would feel foolish if they *did* pay. This point has probably already been reached in countries like Spain.

      As for ‘examples’, let’s take a topical one. Imogen Heap is an entirely independent, self-financed, self-producing artist. This week she released a new song on iTunes. Within hours of it appearing on iTunes it was available on several pirate sites. People like you and Crosbie Fitch always pretend that piracy only hurts the big, bad, monopolistic record companies, but that is either dishonest or plain ignorant.

  4. Here we go again with the ad hominem attacks directed at people instead of debating the points involved.

    “Fortunately, some ‘customers’ do still have the decency to pay, so all is not lost. But if copyright laws were abandoned completely (as you advocate) there would be a tipping point where people would feel foolish if they *did* pay.”

    That’s not economics 101. It’s not even based on any actual study into what consumers want. What I criticize is how law and litigation is supposed to help artists when it’s being proven more and more each passing year that these 17th century concepts no longer apply in the 21st century. What you criticize is anyone coming to the conclusion that they can sell T-shirts (among other things) to make money. You mock anyone giving out suggestions unless it’s something just for you. And yet you still say that the right of ownership over imaginary goods is going to assist them in getting higher up on the totem pole. A few riddles for you:

    Did copyright help Imogen Heap have a song listed in Chronicles of Narnia?
    Did copyright help her in planning the DIY model that they’ve made for themselves?
    Did copyright give her the fans that want to support her?

    It’s not about just a damn huge industry that fails to adapt. What my position is, more artists are becoming more self reliant and ignoring those industries stuck in the past. Copyright might lock up the works of Michael Jackson or JRR Tolkien, but newer works will rely less and less on what copyright law says and more and more on the direction of the artists themselves. (See also: Minecraft and Joe Konrath)

    So what you seem to always want is to appeal to people’s emotional base with nary a look into the reasons for a position. What has copyright done that Imogen can’t do herself? So what if the work is spread on torrent sites? So is everyone else’s. If anything I could probably find the lost episodes of Dr. Who if I had enough time. That doesn’t mean a sale is lost just because it’s out there. What is a lost sale is when I don’t have access to material in the way I would like to live my life. It’s all the more telling that more and more people are using P2P technologies for new series, than doing the same tired concepts of get someone to notice their idea, make a decision and keep trying to appease one stranger over the millions and millions of people who might look to support other avenues.

    • It is difficult to reply to a stream of irrelevant gibberish, but let me pick just one nugget of nonsense out of the stream.

      You ask rhetorically, ‘What has copyright done that Imogen [Heap] can’t do herself?’

      It would be difficult to find a more inept example, for your point of view. A year or two ago a part of an Imogen Heap song was extensively used in a song by Jason Derulo. It was a big international hit, and the Heap sample undoubtedly contributed to its success. And it was perfectly legitimate, because Derulo or his management obtained prior consent, they gave credit, and they shared royalties. That would probably not have happened without copyright, and it is a classic example of how copyright can and should work to the benefit of all.

      • “It is difficult to reply to a stream of irrelevant gibberish…”

        Hmm… I’m speaking English and called you out on constantly attacking people without defending your own position. What’s especially prevalent in your arguments is that you never say how copyright is working, but how it’s supposed to work. I’m being pretty clear with this here:

        ” What I criticize is how law and litigation is supposed to help artists when it’s being proven more and more each passing year that these 17th century concepts no longer apply in the 21st century.” And before I have to clarify, you know that I mean copyright.

        We’ll take away Imogen Heap to one that I know of. Hope Larson did a Black Sheep cover where the contract was negotiated for a movie. This is all fine and well dandy. What you’ve failed to do is say how supposedly pirating that song is to the detriment of the artists involved. It’s a subtle shift, but your argument went away from the torrenting thing. At least, the part that I’m understanding when you’re only reading one part.

        “That would probably not have happened without copyright, and it is a classic example of how copyright can and should work to the benefit of all.”

        Odds are, they made the song and showed them the final piece, and out of respect asked if they could market it. Great if the artist agrees, but the problem arises when an artist believes a piece is overvalued, to the detriment of others.

        • I wasted some time trying to find out about the Hope Larson case you mentioned. I failed, because there isn’t one. But I did find a reference to *Brie* Larson, a singer/actress who appeared in a film and sang a song called ‘Black Sheep’ as part of her performance. The song was written by a band called Metric, and on the soundtrack album it was sung by their usual singer. Presumably ‘pirating’ of the album would not harm Brie Larson, as she was not the songwriter or performer on the album, but it would harm the members of Metric, to the extent that it would deprived them of performing and songwriting royalties. Quantifying that harm is difficult, because not everyone who illegally copies something would otherwise have paid for it, but piracy is on such a large scale that even if only a small proportion of it results in lost sales, it would still be significant.

    • “Did copyright help Imogen Heap have a song listed in Chronicles of Narnia?”

      Are you joking?

      For your sake, I hope so.

      Without copyright they (along with everyone else) would have used her song without giving her diddlyshit in return. Pure exploitation. That’s assuming the Chronicles of Narnia movie would even exist in the first place (which it very obviously would not). Anyone that believes $240,000,000 budgeted movies would still get made in a copyright-free world is an idiot.

      • *shakes head sadly*

        Sounds like you were there at the contract signing when Imogen gave permission to them for it.

        This actually brings up a counter point. How in the world do you know what the directors would do?

        First, Chronicles of Narnia’s author has been dead for more than 30 years. His books won’t pass into public domain until 2033. It’s been adapted into TV shows, radio broadcasts and a movie. And yet no one sees a dissonance in this?

        Regarding Imogen Heap, I’m not saying she shouldn’t be paid for the work she does on the movie. More than likely, they negotiated a contract, worked the licensing out specifically for the movie, and all parties were happy. Looking it up, that seems to be exactly what happened. The question is, where does copyright actually fit into this?

        • You are right that this song was written and recorded specifically for the movie, and Imogen Heap was probably paid a contractual fee for doing so. But it was also released on a soundtrack album, and may have been played on radio, etc, all of which only generate income for the composer thanks to copyright. And the great majority of songs used in films and TV are pre-existing songs which the producers pay for, thanks to copyright. In the obsession with P2P infringement people sometimes forget that copyright has many other applications.

          • “You are right that this song was written and recorded specifically for the movie, and Imogen Heap was probably paid a contractual fee for doing so.”

            Which was not at all clear from his original comment.

            Work for hire scenarios are obviously still possible without copyright but the jobs would be few and far between. Who would pay Imogen Heap to record a song if they themselves couldn’t monetize the resulting song?

            In a world without copyright, Imogen Heap would be recording advertising jingles for pizza places not being hired to write songs for 240 million dollar movies which would not exist.

            So yes, ““copyright DID help Imogen Heap have a song listed in Chronicles of Narnia”. Without copyright, the movie wouldn’t exist, and she never would have been hired.

            This is all pretty obvious…

  5. I have read this, but your English grammar, not to mention your logic, are so poor that I literally do not understand what you are trying to say. Take for example your last sentence: which artist are you talking about, the artist who wrote the song that is being sampled, or the artist who is using the sample? And which of them ‘believes a piece is overvalued’? And to what ‘detriment’ of which ‘others’?
    Can you be surprised that I use words like ‘gibberish’ when confronted with this kind of thing?

    • It’s great when the artist(s) agree. The problem arises when the [original] artist overvalues a work. By placing a monetary value, the [original artist] places a limit on what can be expressed. This causes a detriment to society.

      That’s mainly what copyright does, causing a slowdown effect. If permission is not given, then it goes into litigation in various forms. Those forms can be through Performance Rights Organizations charging the maximum on a business (shutting them down to the detriment of newer artists), suing in civil courts for statutory damages (rap music and sampling come to mind), or charging higher royalties (overvaluing) for a song’s success or popularity.

      • OK, I see what you mean now – I didn’t realise you were referring to both artists (the sampler and the samplee).

        To be flippant, I think preventing rap artists from using a sample would usually be a public benefit, not a detriment. In any case, no artist has a *right* to make use of another artist’s work, and to do so is a privilege for which they should expect to pay a premium price. The original artist has a right to refuse permission for any reason, whether financial, artistic, or otherwise. It is reported (I don’t know if it is true) that Lou Reed refused permission for Susan Boyle to record his song ‘Perfect Day’; I hope it is true, because it would show that artistic integrity is not yet dead.

        • With regret, I find that the report is false. Lou Reed did give permission. Shame.

        • In any case, no artist has a *right* to make use of another artist’s work, and to do so is a privilege for which they should expect to pay a premium price. The original artist has a right to refuse permission for any reason, whether financial, artistic, or otherwise.

          It’s actually the other way around.

          Even so, it’s not surprising that the publishing corporations are keen to hypnotise the masses into believing that copyright is a human right, and that our primordial cultural liberty is a privilege (an insult grudgingly suffered by suitably compensated artists). Amusingly, the copyright cartel quickly glosses over the tendency for human artists to so readily and easily alienate themselves from this ‘human (copy)right’ – to transfer it into the more potent hands of their immortal agents (who unlike the artist, do expect to be around to exploit it decades if not centuries thereafter).

          Check out Wikipedia’s page on Rights of Man to get a clue as to why copyright is actually a privilege, and mankind’s cultural liberty the human right to copy – as annulled by Queen Anne’s statute of 1709.

          Here’s some related discussion on Laurel L. Russwurm’s blog: http://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/copyright-isnt-a-human-right/

          • I have read the Wiki article on the Rights of Man. Curiously, I cannot find any reference to the ‘right to copy’. I have also read other documents, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the (English) Bill of Rights of 1688, and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States, without finding a ‘right to copy’. Indeed, the United States Constitution explicitly allows Congress to make laws for copyright (not the ‘right to copy’!)

            The reason for this is simple: the ‘right to copy’ is a figment of your imagination.

            Incidentally, although the Statute of Anne was the first copyright legislation along more or less modern lines, other measures to safeguard authors and publishers against piracy go back almost to the beginning of printing.

          • DavidB,

            I shall substitute for you:

            It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. The right to copy is inherently in all the inhabitants; but the Statute of Anne, by annulling that right, in the majority, leaves the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . Copyright . . . consequently is an instrument of injustice.

            Have you ever wondered why ‘copyright holders’ are so called? Because they hold in their hands a right annulled in the majority – a privilege. Rights are otherwise inherent, thus you do not hold the right to your own life – you have it by nature – imbued & inalienable within you.

          • Thanks to Crosbie Fitch for his link to the post by Laurel Russworm – perhaps his first useful contribution to these debates. Russworm begins by quoting Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I’m ashamed to say I wasn’t aware of. Article 27(2) says:

            “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. ”

            This is about as clear a defence of the principle of copyright as one could wish! Russworm goes on to argue, with the kind of sophistry that readers will be familiar with, that it isn’t what it seems to be. But it is. In fact, there was some argument about this provision when the Declaration was drafted, because some countries didn’t think copyright was a ‘human right’, as distinct from a utilitarian measure, while some didn’t think it was fundamental enough to be included in the Declaration, and others thought it was adequately covered by general provisions on the right to property (Article 17). But the majority decided that it was a human right, and important enough to be included.

            Of course, Crosbie Fitch could always cite the United States Declaration of Independence, with its inalienable rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and copying. Hang on, I’d better check that last one…

  6. Everything needs to be free. Everyone needs to work for free to entertain me. If you can’t do that then something is obviously wrong with your business model. Saying there are costs involved is just limiting creativity. You really need to sell more t shirts. Why are you so confused?

  7. “You are right that this song was written and recorded specifically for the movie, and Imogen Heap was probably paid a contractual fee for doing so.”

    Which was not at all clear from his original comment.

    I’ve read all of my statements and the link to what exactly Imogen did seems to clarify my position quite well.

    Work for hire scenarios are obviously still possible without copyright but the jobs would be few and far between. Who would pay Imogen Heap to record a song if they themselves couldn’t monetize the resulting song?

    The director as the need arises? See the Wiki link for more details.

    In a world without copyright, Imogen Heap would be recording advertising jingles for pizza places not being hired to write songs for 240 million dollar movies which would not exist.

    Rebuttal is here

    Your assertion is not based on any fact however. There’s already anecdotal stories about people that have been hired for productions from Youtube or share works without any type of publicity rights or other form of “copyright” to get in the way. For Example…

    So yes, ““copyright DID help Imogen Heap have a song listed in Chronicles of Narnia”. Without copyright, the movie wouldn’t exist, and she never would have been hired.

    I’m not positive if you’re putting the cart before the horse here…

    The movie, if CS Lewis were alive would never have been made because CS Lewis did not want even a TV version. As I linked before, the copyright doesn’t end until 2033. Had copyright been made for a shorter term, there would have been a lot more material out (arguably) sooner because people would be expanding on this work in various secondary markets. A lot more people would be able to use Chronicles of Narnia as a basis and make their own stories in various ways.

    This is actually happening currently on TV as well as the web. So I have to question how exactly copyright helped if there would have been more opportunity without. If we’re getting into funding for the movie, I’m sure there’s ways to fund a fan sourced site since it has happened quite a few times in the past for other projects.

    “This is all pretty obvious…”

    No, no it’s not, because it seems like a lot of assumptions are going into your argument. I see the power of a contract and negotiations, but what’s not being explained is the supposed power of law that is seeming to interfere with that. I could understand if a song was used but they later reneged on the agreement. I can understand if copyright was used to pull the song to find one that was a better fit. But what seems to be happening is you’re protecting the idea that copyright is getting the maximum benefit, but not showing exactly how.

    • “I’ve read all of my statements and the link to what exactly Imogen did seems to clarify my position quite well.”

      …which was not in the “original comment” herp derp!

      “Rebuttal is here”

      Did you really just link me to a 450 page document as a rebuttal?

      Really?

      And having previously flicked through said document I can say with some certainty that there is no rebuttal in there to my comment. Two hundred million dollar movies are not made in places where copyright enforcement is lax. Even Bollywood films don’t come close to having budgets like that. You obviously don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Linking me to 450 page “rebuttal” is beyond obnoxious. And no, there is no possibility of 240 million dollar movies being “fan-sourced”, that should go without saying (along with the rest of this post).

      Without copyright, there would be no 200 million dollar movies. Period. I don’t know how to say that any clearer. However, lax copyright enforcement combined with a regional need to launder money efficiently, you might get a cheaply made Chronicles of Narnia (a la Bollywood or Nollywood) but Imogen would undoubtedly receive a fraction of the money she would have otherwise, as the budget would not be there to compensate well.

      And yes, this is all (still) pretty obvious…

      • Given $198 million of that $200 million is likely copyright spawned profligacy and ‘Hollywood accounting’ you’d be left with the non-monopoly-protected/free market labour, i.e. $2 million.

        I suppose it’s not too surprising that those devoutly espousing copyright have difficulty with the idea that a million fans could stump up two bucks each by way of commission. Of course, if that mechanism became at all common, their dusty arguments would blow away in the wind.

        Keep an eye on http://vodo.net

        If fan commissioned movies have ‘Please make your own copies to share with your friends’ printed on them, instead of the traditional movie’s ‘If you copy or show this to more than your immediate family we will send round an FBI SWAT team’ then the idea of paying a publishing corporation to make and distribute copies, and their lawyers to protect their monopoly, falls by the wayside. Scary for the copyright geocentrists eh?

        • “Given $198 million of that $200 million is likely copyright spawned profligacy and ‘Hollywood accounting’ you’d be left with the non-monopoly-protected/free market labour, i.e. $2 million.”

          LOL

          You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about either.

          Put that 2 million figure back where you found it (your ass).

          • There’s no further point in discussing with you anything. You seem to want to do nothing more than be an abrasive and rude person that attacks people rather than debate points. So here’s my final points:

            The first 70 pages of the document are the most proficient for debating. Finding out how enforcement has not been lax in Brazil or heavy copyright laws in said country leads to quite a few different incentives (example Xbox Live page 50) means there is plenty of information that is pertinent to debate. For you, a mere “flickthrough” might be sufficient. But it’s not, a debate make.

            “Without copyright, there would be no 200 million dollar movies. Period. I don’t know how to say that any clearer. However, lax copyright enforcement combined with a regional need to launder money efficiently, you might get a cheaply made Chronicles of Narnia (a la Bollywood or Nollywood) but Imogen would undoubtedly receive a fraction of the money she would have otherwise, as the budget would not be there to compensate well.”

            What my comment says is she would have more opportunities as the need arises since there might be ten movies related to Chronicles of Narnia(Note: not necessarily directly related to the story of Narnia but perhaps there would be other spinoffs she could use, such as a TV show or webisode), not just one movie. She might pull a hat trick and score two or three in succession. Dunno since this is all reflective of how many people can pull from the same source and use different ideas (Hint: public domain)

            “Two hundred million dollar movies are not made in places where copyright enforcement is lax. Even Bollywood films don’t come close to having budgets like that. ”

            There’s quite a lot that copyright does and in Bollywood, since the copyright is more lax, it allows movie theaters to target different tiers of customers. That is one area that the US needs to get a helluva lot better. I also find it quite questionable that somehow $200 million dollar movies supposedly mean that the quality is reflected in the price. Hollywood accounting changes how much a movie makes and it’s amazing that something like Forrest Gump has “made no money”, stopping a sequel. Read a few more examples, and suddenly the question of where is the high production values coming from seems to be answered.

            So no, fan movies aren’t going to have high production numbers. But as I’ve linked to along with other people, they can look as stylized as Hollywood movies without all of the overhead that comes with working with New Line Cinema, Warner Bros, or any other major studio. They can be made for $300, and financed entirely by crowdsourcing. Here’s another movie for $300 dollars.

            The other points you seem to miss is that this does open up other opportunities. This reduction in the costs to make movies or films for enjoyments opens ways to make revenue. The Guild is a niche product that most of Hollywood tried to control. Red vs Blue started as a machinima, but has since progressed while making shorts with Halo’s IP. Both seem to be doing quite well by basing ideas off of other people’s work without copyright forming snags (The Guild borrows heavily from WoW just FYI).

            Netflix is going to begin competing with studios. Vodo has been linked. There is a lot more that is going on with production values becoming cheaper to make content.

            All anyone is saying is that this is giving more opportunities for people outside of industry than copyright seems to do. Snark all you want, but think about the Hollywood accounting link and the “opportunities” that were taken away. Then look at the Vodo, Guild, and RvB link and consider that copyright isn’t what gave them their opportunity, they each just went with what works for them, practically ignoring copyright litigation. If copyright is supposed to help the artists, it should have helped the smaller guys. That isn’t the case.

          • It goes without saying that you seem to want only to not accord people respect in a debate, especially when you seem to only reply with vitriol, so this will probably be my last post to you specifically.

            “Did you really just link me to a 450 page document as a rebuttal?” Yes, yes I did. The first 70 pages are the most prevalent for a debate and by your own admission, you haven’t read it. You’ve yet to read how Bolivia goes on without a central music recording business. You’ve yet to read how copyright infringement takes out monopoly rents on Brazil who own 2 Xboxes, mod one and leave the other to play on the scarcity that is XBox Live. And you’ve yet to really explain the “pennies” argument when there are musicians (read: Djs and musicians) that make money regardless of infringements of copyright. Funny, in order to answer DavidB’s rhetorical question of destroying rap, I can answer you as well:

            All you would have to do to destroy rap is copyright 6 seconds of a drum loop, here

            That’s the problem with copyright in a nutshell.

            But let’s move on.

            “. Two hundred million dollar movies are not made in places where copyright enforcement is lax.”

            You don’t explain how money is relevant to quality of movies or simply quantity. Bollywood may not have 200 million dollar movies, but they have a lot of movies coming out all the time, arguably more than the US. Top that off with a movie theater business that caters to different tiers of customer (read: cheaper customers get the US seating while the richer customers get leather seats and chicken dinner.) and you have a lot of innovation in other areas than movies which seems to be stagnant in the US.

            “And no, there is no possibility of 240 million dollar movies being “fan-sourced”, that should go without saying (along with the rest of this post).”

            Doesn’t have to be. The larger movies are competing with other forms of business for our time. Videogames, comics, Youtube, Vodo, etc are large distractions. And now that you have $300 movies made by newcomers, Hollywood needs to cater to them. Again, I fail to see how more money automatically equals better quality.

            “However, lax copyright enforcement combined with a regional need to launder money efficiently, you might get a cheaply made Chronicles of Narnia (a la Bollywood or Nollywood) but Imogen would undoubtedly receive a fraction of the money she would have otherwise, as the budget would not be there to compensate well.”

            … Launder money efficiently? Kind of like a link to terrorism that doesn’t exist? I’ll just put that one to ignore, because that’s a truly flawed argument.

            I explained that there would be more areas for Imogen to pull from because more people could pull from the Narnia Universe in various ways. While the main story could be updated only by what happens canonically, she could have her talents used for other aspects such as web episodes about the lion or the TV show could be about the mundane world.

            There are aspects of this happening right now. Karma Bar is currently running for 12 episodes with just this very concept. Rather engaging. Even cooler? You can pick the music based on a poll.

            “And yes, this is all (still) pretty obvious…”

            And once again, I say you’re making an assertion. Crosbie brought up Hollywood accounting, which is a serious issue with the budget of Hollywood. Turning a movie into an LLC, then keeping the profits to the studios while complaining that they’re not making money is beyond dishonest. It’s one of the reasons that we hear of more and more independent filmmakers shirking organizations such as the MPAA.

            Vodo.net will become a spot for people to show their own works. That can’t be denied. We also have a lot of creators (You know, the ones that copyright is supposed to benefit?) that are not going the conventional “Go to Hollywood, have an idea, ???? Profit” route. Microsoft licenses the Guild and also licensed heavily from Red vs Blue. You have Netflix that has original content being produced for their space. It’s quite telling that these are examples of movies or content made for fractions of the Hollywood cost and make a profit with their audiences.

            Perhaps the obvious part, that you don’t want to say, is that Imogen Heap, who has done quite well outside of the RIAA model btw, would have more opportunities outside of copyright litigation, because your explanation is still high on assertions.

  8. Techno, you really don’t provide much but derogatory statements into a debate when you have supplied nothing but assertions.

    “Did you really just link me to a 450 page document as a rebuttal?”
    Yes, yes, I did because within just the first 70 pages is the most pertinent information in regards to pricing points around the world, the effectiveness of the enforcement policy, the use of law and education in copyright and their intended effects and the consequences of various endeavors to “respect” copyright by trying to enforce monopoly rents onto various societies. By your own admission, you only “flicked through”. I want to make sure you can look at the page number I’m referencing and see exactly what I’m talking about. Within those first 70 pages, in regards to artists (ya know, the people that copyright should be helping?) it says that those people have various tools and methods to make money.

    One very fine example is Bolivia (page 44), where major labels are not there, and yet the culture of music lives on. If you look into the US, we have a lot of artists coming up all the time, so what you’ve said, “Imogen would undoubtedly receive a fraction of the money she would have otherwise, as the budget would not be there to compensate well.” is a misleading argument. The data doesn’t back up your statement when she has her own DIY model (which DavidB and I discussed, and I am hesitant to say it’s because of copyright when I lean more towards saying it’s because of contracts).

    “Even Bollywood films don’t come close to having budgets like that.”
    What does the budget have to do with the quality? Or the fact that a lot of people want to see the movies in Bollywood? The make movies up to $20 million. They sell more tickets and the revenue is up to US $1.3 billion. A lot of people like Bollywood movies. Even then, the US has had some bombs (budget $100M- Gross $82M)

    So what exactly is your point about Bollywood not being able to catch up in gross revenue?

    So when you say this:
    “You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about either.”
    You’re showing quite a lot of ignorance in a debate. What is happening is that there will be less people going to the big studios. Crosbie has linked to Vodo. Here’s a few more that seem to be ignoring copyright concerns:

    Karma Bar – allows for crowdsourced ideas to help shape the series in a direction each week. The crowd picks the music, the crowd helps to pick the plot. Copyright issues? Possible publicity rights but not necessarily infringement.

    Pioneer One – makes money to film each episode. Currently on the third episode. The more people donate, the faster the episodes are made, and they get their names in the credits at the end of an episode. Copyright? They use Bittorrent… Think about that.

    Netflix with Deck with House of Cards – Only available on Netflix, not on TV. Copyright? Possible issue of downloading, but the scarcity of being a Netflix member may keep this as a niche product. And you can’t watch it on TV… Hmmm… Someone’s going to be angry. I wonder who?

    So we have at least three shows that seem to do either well or expanding beyond the use of just copyright to entertain. No matter how much you mock, perhaps there is truth in thinking that copyright may not work for those that use it as a crutch.

    • “Yes, yes, I did because within just the first 70 pages is the most pertinent information in regards to pricing points around the world, the effectiveness of the enforce…blah blah blah”

      “JUST” the first 70 pages?

      LOL

      You are being lazy and obnoxious. Use quotes. Cite passages. Don’t link me to a 450 page NOVEL in a limp-wristed attempt at rebuttal.

      And how is any of this relevant to the discussion we were having? (it’s not)

      “One very fine example is Bolivia (page 44), where major labels are not there, and yet the culture of music lives on.”

      Were we talking about the “culture of music” living on? Is that what we were talking about? (it’s not)

      “If you look into the US, we have a lot of artists coming up all the time, so what you’ve said, “Imogen would undoubtedly receive a fraction of the money she would have otherwise, as the budget would not be there to compensate well.” is a misleading argument. The data doesn’t back up your statement when she has her own DIY model (which DavidB and I discussed, and I am hesitant to say it’s because of copyright when I lean more towards saying it’s because of contracts).”

      Jesus christ…

      Without copyright, the market for easily-pirated works goes down, this is readily apparent in Bolivia, India, and all of the other piracy-rife emerging markets your obnoxious 450 page “rebuttal” goes over. What that means is, even if Imogen could completely rely on contractual work, the CLIENTS could not afford to pay her as much since the market for the resulting product would be far diminished, which means the clients production budgets would be likewise diminished. Therefore, Imogen would not make anywhere near as much money in a copyright-free world. Therefore, she is better off with copyright than she would be without even if all her income was derived via contract.

      And this is, once again, STILL…beyond obvious. I feel silly having to explain it to you for the umpteenth time.

      “What does the budget have to do with the quality?”

      Often, a lot. And this is true for almost everything.

      “So what exactly is your point about Bollywood not being able to catch up in gross revenue?”

      /facepalm

      A 200 million dollar movie is undoubtedly going to pay Imogen more than 2 million dollar movie would. She makes far more money now than she would in a copyright-free world.

      I don’t think I can make this point any clearer.

      “So when you say this:
      “You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about either.”
      You’re showing quite a lot of ignorance in a debate.”

      LOL

      Crosbie DOESN’T know what the fuck he’s talking about. That’s a fact. He shit out a completely un-researched, uneducated, utterly asinine number and plopped it down into the middle of the discussion like it actually meant something. (it doesn’t)

      “Karma Bar – allows for crowdsourced ideas to help shape the series in a direction each week. The crowd picks the music, the crowd helps to pick the plot.”

      Do they have the budget to hire Imogen Heap? Have they hired any musician of her stature to write a song for the show? (Nope!)

      “Pioneer One – makes money to film each episode. Currently on the third episode. The more people donate, the faster the episodes are made, and they get their names in the credits at the end of an episode. Copyright? They use Bittorrent… Think about that.”

      Do they have the budget to hire Imogen Heap? Have they hired any musician of her stature to write a song for the show? (Nope!)

      “Netflix with Deck with House of Cards – Only available on Netflix, not on TV.”

      This will be DRM’ed, behind a walled garden and copyrighted. Shitty irrelevant example (to add to your growing collection of shitty irrelevant examples)

      “So we have at least three shows that seem to do either well or expanding beyond the use of just copyright to entertain.”

      Two of the shows are niche gimmicks without any market value and devoid of the kind of budget that would allow for hiring someone like Imogen Heap. The third show is still in pre-production and is utterly dependent upon three exclusionary mechanisms, chief among them…copyright.

      Gratz on showing me, once again, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

  9. “What that means is, even if Imogen could completely rely on contractual work, the CLIENTS could not afford to pay her as much since the market for the resulting product would be far diminished, which means the clients production budgets would be likewise diminished. Therefore, Imogen would not make anywhere near as much money in a copyright-free world. Therefore, she is better off with copyright than she would be without even if all her income was derived via contract.”

    There’s really no point in discussion with you further. You seem to only want to behave like a derogatory child and have no actual facts other than your own anecdotal evidence. I’ll reply to this and a few other quotes that seem worth looking into.

    Imogen would have more clients, but the final product of the movie is a false indicator of what her success would (or could) be. Looking at Imogen’s entrepreneurial success, she’s done it all herself. I’m not seeing where copyright comes into the picture. You say that only a knockoff of a movie would allow her to be paid. I am saying she would have more options in front of her. Here’s MY point:

    More clients —> More opportunities —> More revenue streams

    Yours seems to be that one big payoff will be enough, but the artist (Imogen) seems to get along just fine without copyright issues slowing her down. What’s real funny about this? You say she would be paid more for the movie. She went to Indonesia and sold out a 4500 seat concert without copyright to get in the way. Somehow she’s gotten it right and you seem to get her motivations wrong while being derogatory. So to quote someone here:

    “You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about either.”

    As I constantly say here, I notice that copyright seems to slow down the movie industries. Crosbie brought up Hollywood accounting. That’s still accurate. Since Winston Groom can’t make a Forrest Gump 2 without leeches (read: movie picture studios), it stops another possible Academy Award for Tom Hanks. It stops another masterpiece from Robert Zemeckis. That is a lost opportunity. What it seems more and more is that copyright is used by people that can’t negotiate in any other manner. It’s better to sue those that find new uses for material or collect high rents than find ways to allow material to be used. So you might have a point that she can collect more money, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the work or the negotiation of the contract with the studio (in the example we have).

    What I was saying is that Bolivia continued to thrive, even without a major label. I would foresee a similar occurrence happening here in the US, if, or when, the Big Four studios are forced to face the reality of internet distribution.

    “A 200 million dollar movie is undoubtedly going to pay Imogen more than 2 million dollar movie would. She makes far more money now than she would in a copyright-free world.”

    It seems you’ve glossed over everything I’ve said about her having other opportunities, especially with other films. As more people make material based off of Chronicles, she can do more with other projects. Hell, she may want to do a TV series since most artists make royalties from that. Still, I’ve made the argument that she’d find new ways to support herself and her friends (which I did), while you’re still asserting she can make more money off one part of the industry.

    “Do they have the budget to hire Imogen Heap? Have they hired any musician of her stature to write a song for the show? ”

    They’ve just started something unique. Will Wright is pretty famous in other circles. I wouldn’t be surprised if she doesn’t guest compose, or someone similar. I think you’re clouded by the past successes and not looking at the larger picture and this proves it somewhat. I’m pointing to the aspects that might become prevalent, and you’re judging it based on… what? Can they hire her now? Did you even look at how they structure the story? I think what happened here is you did your magic “flick-through”, ignored the way people can create stories, and came to a dismissive conclusion that is centered around one point and not seeing the larger aspects.

    Same goes with Pioneer One. The experiment seems to continue growing and you’re still focused on is it bigger than what’s currently available.

    Netflix, yes, it’s DRM, and behind a walled garden, but it adds to a Netflix subscription at no cost to the consumer. No, I probably won’t watch it myself, but I would imagine that the people that would want this show on their network (TWC, Starz, Hulu) might begin to find original content for their own networks.

    Other than that, it seems there’s no point in continuing a conversation with someone that can only post snide remarks. Have a nice day.

    • “… Launder money efficiently? Kind of like a link to terrorism that doesn’t exist? I’ll just put that one to ignore, because that’s a truly flawed argument.”

      Criminal money laundering in both the Bollywood and Nollywood film industries is a rampant and well known problem. It’s not a flawed argument at all, you are merely ignorant of the well-publicized facts. My recommendation would be to hit up google before you make a fool of yourself again trying to discuss things you know nothing about.

      “Crosbie brought up Hollywood accounting, which is a serious issue with the budget of Hollywood. Turning a movie into an LLC, then keeping the profits to the studios while complaining that they’re not making money is beyond dishonest.”

      I agree “Hollywood Accounting” is a problem, unfortunately it’s a problem that every corporatized industry faces. This is reminiscent of piracy apologists bringing up predatory contracts in the recording industry…predatory contracts happen EVERYWHERE.

      The Forest Gump example is particularly despicable and I commend the author for sticking to his copyright-afforded guns and standing in the way of a sequel. Unlike you, I see this as a victory of copyright, not a failing.

      “Perhaps the obvious part, that you don’t want to say, is that Imogen Heap, who has done quite well outside of the RIAA model btw”

      Imogen herself disagrees with you.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220002

      “More clients —> More opportunities —> More revenue streams”

      = not necessarily “more money’.

      If there’s one thing that the internet has proven over and over again, it’s “to the aggregators go the spoils”, they are the only ones making money on volume. Everyone else resembles more and more the sharecroppers of yore.

      “Yours seems to be that one big payoff will be enough…”

      No, my position is simply that professional artists are better off in an environment where their property rights are respected. The worldwide evidence bears this out.

      Hobbyists and producers of derivative works might like web 2.0 collectivism, but I see no reason why their wishes should supersede those of the professionals.

      “… but the artist (Imogen) seems to get along just fine without copyright issues slowing her down.”

      Once again, Imogen herself disagrees with you.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220002

      “So you might have a point that she can collect more money, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the work or the negotiation of the contract with the studio (in the example we have).”

      It has everything to do with the contract with the studio. I’m not going to explain that to you again. If you want to be willfully dense, that’s your business. But explaining things to you over and over that shouldn’t have needed any explanation in the first place is not worth my time.

      “What I was saying is that Bolivia continued to thrive, even without a major label.”

      Thrive is a pretty strong word for a market as minuscule and hopelessly regional as Bolivia’s. The article also states that the pirates are still there, selling the musicians work en masse. That is a profound injustice. How much more could the artists be making without these undeserving parasites stealing the fruits of their labors?

      “They’ve just started something unique. Will Wright is pretty famous in other circles. I wouldn’t be surprised if she doesn’t guest compose, or someone similar.”

      Worthless speculation. Be sure to update us when it ACTUALLY happens.

      “I think you’re clouded by the past successes and not looking at the larger picture and this proves it somewhat. I’m pointing to the aspects that might become prevalent, and you’re judging it based on… what?”

      Reality.

      LOL

      This is the dividing line between us, my realism and common sense versus your unchecked, irrational, optimism. You and Crosbie both base much of your arguments on what MIGHT happen, what MIGHT be possible, and you both argue a if these possibilities are already facts.

      It’s absurd.

      • What’s absurd is to refuse to recognise that ‘intellectual property’ is a 18th century grant of a monopoly, and that ‘piracy’ is the individual’s liberty and right to copy (annulled in the majority, to be left by exclusion in the hands of a few).

        The people are taking their liberty back. There is no point arguing about whether it should be allowed to happen, because it is happening, inexorably. The argument is to abolish the privilege to end fundamentally innocent victims’ suffering at the spiteful hands of its invariably corporate holders.

        Arguing the economics of a theoretically salvageable 18th century privilege is moot. Copyright has ended. The only economic viability that remains is being explored by the likes of Righthaven – not too well.

        • “What’s absurd is to refuse to recognise that ‘intellectual property’ is a 18th century grant of a monopoly”

          All property rights can be considered monopolistic.

          “and that ‘piracy’ is the individual’s liberty and right to copy (annulled in the majority, to be left by exclusion in the hands of a few).”

          This is no more the case than: “stealing” is the individual’s liberty and natural right to take (annulled in the majority, to be left by exclusion in the hands of a few).

          “The people are taking their liberty back.”

          Once again, you abuse the word “liberty” with whorish abandon.

          “The argument is to abolish the privilege to end fundamentally innocent victims’ suffering at the spiteful hands of its invariably corporate holders.”

          Copyright is no more of a privilege than any other property right. And digital freeloaders are not victims by any stretch of the imagination (even one as fertile as yours). Finally, there are many content creators who retain their copyright and whose livelihoods are derived from the same.

          None of your proposed solutions in the theoretical absence of copyright hold water.

      • Imogen Heap disagrees with me?

        From the link you posted:

        “Although she is reluctant to name names, the newly merged Live Nation and Ticketmaster owns half the venues on her 23-date North American tour and is selling tickets for most”

        “The extra time required would give her less chance to write new material. “And the writing of songs for me or other people, or producing other people, that’s where the cash comes in. It was a decision I was having to make.””

        And has she stopped her touring?

        April 16 – Singapore
        April 18 – Melbourne

        Further to drive my point home, my exact words that you ignored earlier are in the article:

        <a href=So she is looking to more innovative solutions to stay on the road.

        A recent gig in Indonesia showed a possible way forward. The singer had never visited or paid attention to the country – until a deluge of tweets from Indonesian fans.

        That was the first she knew of the large fanbase there, and resulted in a sold out gig to 4,000 fans in Jakarta.

        Copyright sure as hell didn’t get her those fans in such a remote location from the US. It was her use of technology and her own ideas (read: NOT the RIAA’s gatekeeper model) that resulted in the sold out gig.

        Further, not one mention of copyright is in that article. Not one locking up of music, not one litigation takedown, not one mention of piracy. She said one thing that still resonates in my argument:

        “”My biggest asset is not cash – it’s a large, growing, devout fanbase,” Heap says.”

        You have an uphill struggle in proving otherwise.

        “The article also states that the pirates are still there, selling the musicians work en masse.”

        Just like the pirates of South Africa and the network that they have around selling CDs, textbooks (yes textbooks. Look up SA’s political struggles), and tapes.

        Just like Brazil has an infrastructure dedicated to pirated goods because they’re so damned expensive.

        Just like in India the Competitive Pricing Power of $1 goes a lot further than you like to give it credit for. It doesn’t take much to figure out that if you can do more with a rupee, the $20 million vs $2 million of India argument is pretty meaningless. India sold more tickets than the US, the USD actually has more purchasing power in India, so there was more money to go around for movies in Bollywood.

        TL;DR. You need to adjust for inflation. The network of “pirated” goods doesn’t go away from enforcement. That’s what’s coming through in the media piracy book. You really should read about the economic struggles of other countries. It’s fascinating to see all the ways piracy has been encountered and other country’s response to it.

        “How much more could the artists be making without these undeserving parasites stealing the fruits of their labors?”

        Your argument hinges on potential income. Ironic that you say mine does when this sentence does exactly what you say I’m doing. Economics teaches about consumer surplus. Or perhaps you can look up ripple effects and see that money flows more than one way. From what your last two paragraphs say about this, it seems you feel the money should only flow one way. Notch says otherwise. He’s making money on “piracy”. He’s also rather successful on an obscure game that ONLY passed through word of mouth. The success of the no DRM Humble Indie Bundles says that people will pay money for goods if you give them an incentive to do so.

        But the minute you treat customers as criminals, that’s all you see from that moment onward.

        “Hobbyists and producers of derivative works might like web 2.0 collectivism, but I see no reason why their wishes should supersede those of the professionals.”

        The best I can say is this:
        If you’re in an industry just for the money, you’re not going to get very far. Your motivation is going to be all wrong, and judging from what Imogen is saying, you won’t see the true passion. Those “amateurs” you dismiss are making short clips on Youtube. They’re making music to get their name out on Jamendo.

        The days of big record labels seems to be at an end when it’s the artists that are getting to the forefront. What the labels did was make boy bands since they had collective control of the mediums of expression (payola – radio, TV controlled by MTV, etc). Now, if I don’t like the radio? I have a bevy of artists, professional or otherwise, to listen and choose from. I can download the songs of Kendra Springer, who hasn’t signed a deal with any RIAA affiliated band, or move on to Magnatune that treats its artists fairly to listen to songs.

        In other words, people have choices in entertainment. Some of the old ways of doing business are no longer viable such as regionalization. What comes out here in the US won’t take 30 days to get to another country. I’m willing to bet that happens pretty regularly, that some of the downloads are from other countries because people like western content even so far as Saudi Arabia.

        So there is plenty of opportunity. It’s about time to recognize those and let the fallacy that is “copyright for the artist” die.

        • From the link you posted:
          “Although she is reluctant to name names, the newly merged Live Nation and Ticketmaster owns half the venues on her 23-date North American tour and is selling tickets for most”

          What is your point?

          “The extra time required would give her less chance to write new material. “And the writing of songs for me or other people, or producing other people, that’s where the cash comes in. It was a decision I was having to make.””

          I don’t know what else to say. Imogen Heap is on record saying that A) the decline in record sales has HURT her and B) Touring is on the bleeding edge of being fiscally infeasible.

          And amazingly, you don’t seem to think either of these admissions are of any import. That she is still touring doesn’t mean things are any better.

          As for “producing for other people”, were copyright nullified, Imogen Heap (and every other musican) wouldn’t have a chance in hell trying to compete with their own back catalogues.

          “That was the first she knew of the large fanbase there, and resulted in a sold out gig to 4,000 fans in Jakarta.

          Copyright sure as hell didn’t get her those fans in such a remote location from the US. It was her use of technology and her own ideas (read: NOT the RIAA’s gatekeeper model) that resulted in the sold out gig.”

          I agree with this. A rare solid point from your end. There is still however the lingering specter of her own admission that touring is a very difficult thing to fiscally balance. What happened to it being the savior of musicians post-copyright? This is a far cry from the predictions your camp made in the recent past.

          Further, not one mention of copyright is in that article. Not one locking up of music, not one litigation takedown, not one mention of piracy.

          No direct mentions, no. That doesn’t mean copyright and piracy aren’t relevant to it. Copyright is the reason she gets big money for commissioned work and is also the reason she isn’t competing with herself for jobs. Piracy and the declining CD sales she lamented in the article are of course interrelated issues. Anyone that says differently isn’t worth having an adult conversation with.

          “She said one thing that still resonates in my argument:
          “”My biggest asset is not cash – it’s a large, growing, devout fanbase,” Heap says.”

          You have an uphill struggle in proving otherwise.”

          That statement doesn’t really jive with her earlier one that the real money is in commissioned work. If her fanbase was as devout as she thinks, she wouldn’t be having so much trouble with touring and declining mechanical sales.

          “Just like the pirates of South Africa and the network that they have around selling CDs, textbooks (yes textbooks. Look up SA’s political struggles), and tapes.

          Just like Brazil has an infrastructure dedicated to pirated goods because they’re so damned expensive.”

          Obvious dodge is obvious. What is your point? That parasitism through piracy and counterfeiting is rampant?

          No shit.

          “Just like in India the Competitive Pricing Power of $1 goes a lot further than you like to give it credit for. It doesn’t take much to figure out that if you can do more with a rupee, the $20 million vs $2 million of India argument is pretty meaningless. India sold more tickets than the US, the USD actually has more purchasing power in India, so there was more money to go around for movies in Bollywood.”

          …what are you on about now?

          TL;DR. You need to adjust for inflation. The network of “pirated” goods doesn’t go away from enforcement.

          Like most of your seemingly random points, I fail to see what relevance this has to our discussion. Are you just copy and pasting talking points from some sort of master list? That’s certainly what it feels like.

          “How much more could the artists be making without these undeserving parasites stealing the fruits of their labors?”

          Your argument hinges on potential income. Ironic that you say mine does when this sentence does exactly what you say I’m doing.

          You’re grasping for straws now. Lost revenue in relation to the unfair competition from piracy/counterfeits is hardly as benign or indirect as you make it out to be. This also isn’t in anyway comparable to you (and the other resident Pollyanna) forever attempting to make mountains out of molehills.

          Economics teaches about consumer surplus. Or perhaps you can look up ripple effects and see that money flows more than one way. From what your last two paragraphs say about this, it seems you feel the money should only flow one way. Notch says otherwise.

          Wow that was a stupid “article”. The difference between lost sales through piracy and lost sales through legitimate competition, consumer word of mouth or press reviews…couldn’t be more obvious. The former is unfair, unethical, and indefensible and the latter is the exact opposite.

          Using this same logic, I could say “If murder is bad, shouldn’t killing someone in self defense also be a crime?”

          The obvious answer to both his and my questions is “no”.

          He’s making money on “piracy”. He’s also rather successful on an obscure game that ONLY passed through word of mouth.

          Again, what is your point? Why are you bringing this up? What relevance does this have to our previous conversation? Put down your master list of talking points already.

          I believe I already mentioned Minecraft. I see it as the pinnacle of web 2.0 success stories. I think video games will ultimately be the industry that best adapts to the internet (mostly through cloud computing and closed online communities). If there were more Minecrafts to point to rather than just the one, I probably wouldn’t find your optimism so hilarious.

          And BTW, it had a hell of a lot of help from a number of high profile blogs.

          The success of the no DRM Humble Indie Bundles says that people will pay money for goods if you give them an incentive to do so.

          More like “ideologue bundle”. And “pay what you want” is not a business model, it’s begging for charity, you know, like what bums do on street corners?

          It might work for low-rent, single player flash games who pander to freeloaders for handouts but the fact is, it has not been shown to work for anything else.

          You think EA could survive under such a model? Get real.

          The best I can say is this:
          If you’re in an industry just for the money, you’re not going to get very far.

          If that’s the best you can say, I feel sorry for you since that sure as hell wasn’t a valid, on-topic reply to anything I said. Keep your strawmen to yourself.

          Those “amateurs” you dismiss are making short clips on Youtube. They’re making music to get their name out on Jamendo.

          Who gives a shit? What does this have to do with anything? They upload to youtube and Jamendo so they should be allowed to use/mashup/remix (exploit) whatever they want? Sorry. You’ll have to try harder than that…

          What the labels did was make boy bands since they had collective control of the mediums of expression (payola – radio, TV controlled by MTV, etc).

          The labels also “made” The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Radiohead and NIN. You are fast becoming a waste of time with these ridiculous, hyperbolic statements…

          So there is plenty of opportunity. It’s about time to recognize those and let the fallacy that is “copyright for the artist” die.

          It’s only a fallacy in your terminally cognitively dissonant mind.

  10. For a guy who keeps saying he won’t debate mean people who are rude and obnoxious to him, Jay is not only rude and obnoxious, but keeps coming back.

    And since he has also said time and again he is not against copyright, he does nothing but argue to eliminate copyright.

    At this point, I wonder what “non-profit educational organization” pays this anti-creator rights shill.

    Jay’s concern for artists is the fallacy here. As usual. Big fat fake.