"But when everyone copies music for free, nothing is received by the musician. Who would then both to produce music?"

when someone copies vidoes online everyone will still make youtube videos - and some ideas will be produced which would never be thought of by any number of holywood studios. (the case in point being 'lego star wars' stop motion animations, which some viewers find more entertaining than the big budget films)

"you're telling me that I cant listen to my history if I'm poor? "

What the fuck kind of statement is that, really? What the fuck are you trying to say here?

Sicarius, you said, "Ideas are not a finite resource that can be taken." This is true in the abstract, but any engineer can tell you that the abstract doesn't really apply practically. Practically, information is finite because it is limited by the market. Anyone who gets an information product for free is removed from that market. When pirating information becomes widespread, the market, and thus the product share of ideas, shrinks rapidly.

I don't mean to say that the distributors of information haven't abused copyright law--they have; they've abused it up the ass. However, the idea of intellectual property when implemented in a means completely foreign to how we do it in the USA is a fundamentally good idea. By this, I mean that if I produce a creative work, credit for the work should remain mine.

Also, why do so many people complain about stealing, only when it flows upward on the hierarchal structure? It's ok when rich people steal poor peoples homes, or when powerful countries steal resources from weaker countries, or when police beat up/kill sme poor brown-skinned person, so it's obviously ok for violence and theft and brutality to flow down the hierarchy, but when someone who cant afford a cd pirates the music from an already way too rich musician, or when a homeless person squats an abandoned building, or when underdogs defend themselves, it's not ok?

I never said musicians should not be paid, i said the copyright on their music should expire after 10 years, is that not a fair middle ground?

I'm not really sure what you guys are arguing about anymore...

"It's ok when rich people steal poor peoples homes, or when powerful countries steal resources from weaker countries, or when police beat up/kill sme poor brown-skinned person, so it's obviously ok for violence and theft and brutality to flow down the hierarchy"

Who around here advocates this view?

oh, and just to point out, copyright infringment is not theft.

It may reduce somneone's income (or it may help distribute their works and allow it to be expierenced by a larger audience, thus increasing ticket sales for a musician's concerts and increasing their income)

Also since 'the poor' aren't going to contribute to an artist's income anyway all those people without sufficient disposable income to buy music but with the time to infringe the copyright are not reducing the income of anyone. (the music industry has largely stopped investing in anti-copying technologies, and started distributing music online for a minimal fee - to offer a realistic alternative to the pirates)

theft inplies taking something from another person, copying does not take, it allows the original person keep their version.

The majority of musicians make very little if any money from recordings. Music has been around for a very long time, whereas notions of copyrighting music and making obscene amounts of money off of recording contracts is a relatively young notion. Have things like American Idol and mainstream recording studios improved the quality of popular music? Hardly. Kids listen to prefabricated noise, not quality music.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that copyrights have their use. It is true that those who purely distribute music (and do not themselves contribute to performance) would have little financial incentive to do so otherwise. And the artists are hurt because it is more difficult for them to expand their audience. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that musicians will stop performing music if it is no longer copyrighted. Historically, musicians received the bulk of their music-based income from live performance, and the same is true for the majority of musicians today.

As someone involved in the music industry, I have a view on this.

Copyright is a good thing. Copyright protects creative people, for example musicians, and ensures that they are able to make a living from their work, thus encouraging them to produce more. This is good for culture.

If there were no copyright it would be harder for many artists to make a living. This would be bad for culture.

Also, without copyright, an artists work could be plagarised left, right and centre and there would be little he could do about it. An artist has a right to have some control over what he produces.

And before you say "ah, but musicians can make money by performing live gigs", what about retired or disabled musicians who can no longer perform? Income from royalties on their copyrighted music is often an important source of income for such people. I happen to know a well-respected blues musician who has recently suffered a stroke and may never perform again. His monthly royalty cheque will be very important to him over the coming years. He has earned those royalties, because he created that music - if it hadn't been for him, that music would not exist, and would therefore add nothing to our culture.

In terms of orathaic's view that copyright should only last 10 years, I don't think this is long enough at all. Perhaps having the copyright term lasting the lifetime of the artist would be fair - I might support that (especally as I am anti-interitance, but that's another debate).

Wow, I think I am almost entirely in agreement with Acosmist. That doesn't happen often ;p

"Also, why do so many people complain about stealing, only when it flows upward on the hierarchal structure? "

Ok, lets turn this around, Sic. Although I freely admit I'm going to veer wildly off topic.

Your philosophy seems to be summed up by "I want stuff to be free, because property rights are evil"

So, what do you plan do you with your life? Is it creative in nature? Do you plan to give your 'work' away for free, and if so, how do you plan to feed yourself?

And if your answer is something along the lines of "I'm an artist so society owes me a living because I give them pretty pictures", I question why you would use the threat of government force (ie: pay taxes or go to jail) to take money from *me* so you can do what you want.

Not saying that the latter *is* your words, let me be clear - but it is something I've heard *more* than once from people who seem to share your philosophy.

Actually I am an artist, and I do give away my work for free. I dont think nyone has any obligation to support me because I "give" to the culture.
"I want stuff to be free, because property rights are evil" yeah basically. there are certainly exceptions to this, because generalizations dont usually work too well.

I would never use the threat of government force. I'm an anarchist. idiot.
I absolutely do not support government taxes, and my eccomendation is that you stop paying them.

Feeding yourself is really easy in a throwaway consumer culture like this one. I grow most of my own food, have chickens, and anything I cant create myself I get from dumpstering, or through community programs like food not bombs. (community support and charity are very different things)

I think copyright is important for human expression because an author of a work should have certain privileges to his or her own work that the general public does not. Without copyright, the authorship of a work of art becomes irrelevant and I can understand how, to some, this might be ok (because it gives you flowery and sparkly feelings of goodwill to all mankind as you generously and freely shower the world with your creative wonders) but to actual working artists, it makes their occupation unprofitable. If being an artist is utterly unprofitable (and let's face it, in today's society it almost is DESPITE copyright laws) then artists will be forced to take up more gainful employment and that will cut into their artistic output. This is why a lack of copyright would destroy a large amount of art.

sorry for all the typos this keyboard sucks

@Jamie : is it too much to ask artists to invest in a pension fund the way everyone else, who can afford to, does?

also i don't think there is a need for professional distributors in the internet age - piracy has proven one thing, people are willing to rebistribute works themselves - peer-to-peer sharing is exactly what it sounds like.

@Ghost: Since the 1920's, corporations have been paying a lot of money to get the length of copyrights expanded. The most famous of these, is probably also the largest beneficiary of the public domain, before they fought to eliminate it. Disney did not see any moral problem using all the old stories out of copyright, but then made sure nothing they created would ever be out of copyright. Let's look at the latest expansion of copyright lengths nickname: "Mickey Mouse Protection Act". On the Tolkien thing, copyright protects more than the pure words. Heard of the "Wind dun Gone" lawsuit? Or the many by and against JK Rowling? An encyclopedia was stopped being published, because it was based on the ideas in Harry Potter...not exactly the same words.

@Jamie: Generally, artists do not get any money from their copyrights. The recording companies are the beneficiaries. I have seen music artists contracts that have been published. We are protecting the corporations, making sure they stay profitable. Notice how all the copyright infringement payouts never actually make it to artists. The people lobbying and fighting for copyright law, are not interested in protecting artists. They are interested in protecting corporate profits.

@everyone:
10 years is probably too little now. Although, it is strange that the original term was because of the cost of printing, which has most assuredly gone down since then. I would say 10 years, renewable afterwords for 10 year periods, but every renewal goes up substantially in price. You are gaining more and more benefit from keeping it private, so you pay more to do so. This all may be moot. There is a fight going on in society right now. It is between corporations and consumers. The fight will be decided, either by total enforcement or a breaking of the statutes. In the US, the Supreme Court of the US will probably be the way to break them, if they will be. There is no way that Congress, with all the money coming from corporations, will do anything sane about it.

I would like a shorter term, probably with it decreasing slowly. Every year, make all existing copyrights 1 year shorter. So, if there is one at 10, when 1 year passes, there would be 8 left. I would like all copyrights to be registered again. IE, you have to make an effort to be copyrighted. There will be a way to find out who owns a copyright. The cost of production of a book can be very cheap now. Eragon was self-published. We have amazon, so no problem with distribution.

Musicians traditionally, and still do, make most of their money from concerts and merchandise. None of that will change.

I asked a poet about copyrights at some point. She said it was so she could leave an income for her children. If you make money from selling you work, great, you can leave money to your children. I don't get money for the rest of my life, because I made a car someone uses. You created something, great. If you make money from it, great. It doesn't mean you have to be protected from anyone ever saying it for the rest of eternity. That doesn't make what you did less valuable. Do we not remember Homer, or Plato, or Shakespeare, because their works weren't copyrighted? Is the creation of art a get rich quick scheme, or because you love to create it? Shouldn't your legacy be a great work, that will be read forever?

I am not saying we should ever let someone take their name and put it to someone else's book. I am saying the ideas someone creates should be free to use. How about we change copyright in that manner. If you take someone's book, and place your name on it, that is illegal, but if you use ideas or make something from it. You own those exact words, and that is all...after 10 years.

Great composers have always used things from each other, did that make them immoral? Right now, books that are out of print were dying until Google acted to save them. Some artists saw this as immoral. What is amusing is that this is immoral, but if I bring up torture, people argue the other side..

@Tantris:

"@Jamie: Generally, artists do not get any money from their copyrights."

Artists do make money from royalties. It is often an important part of their income. Those royalty payments would be under threat if it were not for copyright.

"The people lobbying and fighting for copyright law, are not interested in protecting artists."

This simply isn't true. Many of the people lobbying and fighting for copyright law are actually artists themselves. Cliff Richard and Paul McCartney spring to mind as prominent music artists who have lobbied publicly in support of copyright law and in opposition to people like the Pirate Bay. And have you forgotten that the band Metallica were one of the most high profile campaigners to have Napster shut down?

@ Tantris: "Musicians traditionally, and still do, make most of their money from concerts and merchandise. None of that will change."

As I have already said, what about artists who have retired due to old age, or who are too ill to perform? orthaic asked me a question on that so here's my response:

"@Jamie : is it too much to ask artists to invest in a pension fund the way everyone else, who can afford to, does? "

To a certain extent you have a point, however the music business can be very volatile and your income can be very difficult to predict from one year to the next. Under these circumstances making regular pension payments can be difficult. Most artists have tended to regard their future royalties as a kind of pension.

@ Tantris: " I don't get money for the rest of my life, because I made a car someone uses."

Not necessarily true. If you designed the car, you may be able to patent certain components which have a unique or novel design, and you may then be able to make further money from those patents in the same way that a musician gets royalties.

Well, not "the same" way, but in a similar way.

@Jamie: Metallica is essentially a record company, rather than a band. Notice how you aren't listing up and coming artists? This is who it should be helping. Not those from decades ago. Have you seen these articles:
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
http://torrentfreak.com/band-leaks-track-to-bittorrent-blames-pirates-080731/

@Jamie: If you are successful enough to get enough royalties to live off of, you should have a pension fund. If not, it doesn't matter. Either way, those royalties are just kind of the cherry on top. They only are there for the people that should have put money aside.

Metallica, along with Megadeth, invented thrash metal and are one of the greatest heavy metal bands of all time. They are a band.

I am also involved in helping to promote local up-and-coming bands in my area. Some of them like the idea of giving their music away, certainly, but I would say that the majority would still prefer to go along the traditional route of signing a record deal and releasing albums for people to buy. One band I know has a record deal, and are just about to release their second album, and are perfectly happy with the 'traditional' route.

Steve Albini is a jerk.

If you read Steve Albini's piece, you'll also note his reference to "A&R" men.

Albini couldn't be more wrong about this. In part, the problems that the industry is facing today can partly be blamed on a serious lack of investment in A&R during the 90's and 00's. The industry has increasingly been motivated by a desire to get a few quick hits from an artist and then dispose of them. This means they actually spend too much time scouting for artists, but then spend far too little time developing them. As a result an artist might score a couple of hits due to some catchy songwriting, but they often fail to make a real connection with the audience.

Judas Priest recorded four albums for CBS before the company starting making a profit from them. But in those days the record companies were willing to make a real investment in an artist, and use good A&R people to nurture them properly. CBS regarded their first 2-3 Judas Priest albums as an investment while the band developed. There is not enough of that now, because the labels have failed to keep investing in A&R and let artists develop at their own pace.

"Congrats" to them, they got a record deal...probably got screwed.

As I understand it, Metallica's contract is different than a normal contract in the way it is worded. It gives them the benefits that usually go to record companies. Perhaps, I am wrong.

@Jamie: wow...you are defending record companies. That is a first. I have never seen someone standing up for them. Under which title are you listed in his article? Manager? Agent? You said promoting...

I think we should avoid just getting into an argument about Metallica. The point is, you were implying that musicians and artists are not campaigning against copyright violations, and do not support copyright. I wanted to demonstrate that you are mistaken. I used the example of some famous musicians because I wanted to mention people that other members of this forum might have heard of. If you prefer, I could also tell you that Del Bromham from the band Stray has campaigned in favour of stronger copyright laws, or that people like Dan Hawkins and Robb Weir also hold this view.

Hang on, eating, will respond and tell you about me and what I do in just a sec...