This BBC news item, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-1342921, is about the Hargreaves Report which sets out possible reforms to UK copyright law, including legalizing the practice of copying CDs or DVDs onto digital music players or computers. The report points out that no individual (in the UK) has been prosecuted for ripping music for personal use. These proposed reforms would of course bring legislation into line with the internet age and formally make legal what millions have been doing for decades, such as the innocuous practice of backing up irreplaceable recordings.
well good!
This devalues recorded work which was the bread and butter of musicians for decades when you 'had to buy the album' or some actual physical doodah (and previously the sheet music) and reinforces the value of paying live musicians to perform. This is how it surely was before Mr Marconi (or wotteffah) came along!
Our (non-trad) band has just made a new album. Apart from flogging the occasional tune as a download and the even more occasional CD at a gig (to some old bloke) , it is mainly a promotional tool for gigs which is rapidly becoming musicians main source of revenue (again)!!
It's impossible to protect digital stuff, so let's face the music and let it go!
And I enjoy all the studio stuff; the pointless Stylophone overdubs, the phlanging, the general Sir George Martin-ness...
Digital data can be copied cheaply and is therefore not scarce, its price naturally will approach zero (even if attempts are made to keep the price artificially up), human time and work are naturally scarce and its costs will go up.
I personally like a lot the idea of live music being the core of the music industry.
The big recording companies have tried every trick in the book to keep their stranglehold on musicians, but they're now hanging by their fingernails. Just a few more stamps...
The music industry would likely be in a lot healthier state if they had embraced the digital revolution long ago, instead of fighting it at every turn. Social sharing of music is one of the most powerful ways to spread the awareness of an artist's music. If you use that to your advantage instead of fighting it, there's potentially even more money to be made because of the widespread appeal. Even iTunes sells music without any DRM nowadays, specifically because of that.
Too true - all of that above. The recording industry from way back (anyone remember the "home taping is killing music" slogan?) has not fought to preserve music, just to preserve its own dinosaur-like, myopic business model, and can't at all cope with the idea that - heavens! - ordinary people might be creative, want to version stuff or create their own, and sell it.
Fortunately, technology and interconnectedness has (or will shortly) render a lot of that old industry thinking extinct. There are industry players who have a great deal of interesting stuff to say about new business models - and how musicians can get financial recompense for the fantastic amount of hard work and dedication they give in service of music (of whatever genre).
Bob Lefsetz has a lot to say in his regular newsletter - a lot of it culturally specific to the USA but still worth a read, when he gets to talking about the shift in thinking brought about by new technologies. http://www.lefsetz.com/
But times change. Used to be you were basically accused of being worse than an investment banker if you confessed to down loading CDS. Certainly on these boards.
Nice to read the posts about performing live for real money instead of Record companies making zillions while the musicians got little.
Hopefully everyone, bar the rip off merchants, will be happy.
Yes. The whole notion of "intellectual property" has always been a farce. Any honest analysis will show that intellect is a property of a species, not any individual or company.
Artists have long been used as the pathos arguement for some to sequester common value away from the common good so it can be sold back - "intellectual property" has always been a device to impoverish the many for the enrichment of afew liars and tricksters. The artist never truly needed any of it - except for the ones who thought they would get as rich as the Beatles - they wiggle and howl in protest and spend all their ill-gotten gains on lawyers, and their music is not worth paying for.
Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
This BBC news item, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-1342921, is about the Hargreaves Report which sets out possible reforms to UK copyright law, including legalizing the practice of copying CDs or DVDs onto digital music players or computers. The report points out that no individual (in the UK) has been prosecuted for ripping music for personal use. These proposed reforms would of course bring legislation into line with the internet age and formally make legal what millions have been doing for decades, such as the innocuous practice of backing up irreplaceable recordings.
# Posted on May 18th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
well good!
This devalues recorded work which was the bread and butter of musicians for decades when you 'had to buy the album' or some actual physical doodah (and previously the sheet music) and reinforces the value of paying live musicians to perform. This is how it surely was before Mr Marconi (or wotteffah) came along!
Our (non-trad) band has just made a new album. Apart from flogging the occasional tune as a download and the even more occasional CD at a gig (to some old bloke) , it is mainly a promotional tool for gigs which is rapidly becoming musicians main source of revenue (again)!!
It's impossible to protect digital stuff, so let's face the music and let it go!
And I enjoy all the studio stuff; the pointless Stylophone overdubs, the phlanging, the general Sir George Martin-ness...
# Posted on May 19th 2011 by yhaalhouse
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Yup, that's the way to do it now.
Digital data can be copied cheaply and is therefore not scarce, its price naturally will approach zero (even if attempts are made to keep the price artificially up), human time and work are naturally scarce and its costs will go up.
I personally like a lot the idea of live music being the core of the music industry.
# Posted on May 19th 2011 by basasa
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
The big recording companies have tried every trick in the book to keep their stranglehold on musicians, but they're now hanging by their fingernails. Just a few more stamps...
# Posted on May 19th 2011 by gam
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
The music industry would likely be in a lot healthier state if they had embraced the digital revolution long ago, instead of fighting it at every turn. Social sharing of music is one of the most powerful ways to spread the awareness of an artist's music. If you use that to your advantage instead of fighting it, there's potentially even more money to be made because of the widespread appeal. Even iTunes sells music without any DRM nowadays, specifically because of that.
# Posted on May 19th 2011 by Reverend
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Too true - all of that above. The recording industry from way back (anyone remember the "home taping is killing music" slogan?) has not fought to preserve music, just to preserve its own dinosaur-like, myopic business model, and can't at all cope with the idea that - heavens! - ordinary people might be creative, want to version stuff or create their own, and sell it.
Fortunately, technology and interconnectedness has (or will shortly) render a lot of that old industry thinking extinct. There are industry players who have a great deal of interesting stuff to say about new business models - and how musicians can get financial recompense for the fantastic amount of hard work and dedication they give in service of music (of whatever genre).
# Posted on May 19th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Bob Lefsetz has a lot to say in his regular newsletter - a lot of it culturally specific to the USA but still worth a read, when he gets to talking about the shift in thinking brought about by new technologies. http://www.lefsetz.com/
# Posted on May 19th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
The link does not open Trevor.
But times change. Used to be you were basically accused of being worse than an investment banker if you confessed to down loading CDS. Certainly on these boards.
Nice to read the posts about performing live for real money instead of Record companies making zillions while the musicians got little.
Hopefully everyone, bar the rip off merchants, will be happy.
# Posted on May 19th 2011 by bodhran bliss
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Bliss, it looks like that BBC page had a limited web-life. Beyond our control. Sorry!
# Posted on May 20th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Not sure if this is exactly the same one, but probably is similar:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13429217
# Posted on May 20th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Mark, re http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13429217, it's on the same subject, but slightly different emphases and more detail, from what I remember.
# Posted on May 20th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Thanks Mark and Trevor.
# Posted on May 20th 2011 by bodhran bliss
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2090&sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dd65b7a2b5e5e2a%2C0
And the reaction from the NUJ, more concerned I imagine with printed material.
# Posted on May 20th 2011 by bodhran bliss
Re: Copyright law in the UK to get a makeover?
Yes. The whole notion of "intellectual property" has always been a farce. Any honest analysis will show that intellect is a property of a species, not any individual or company.
Artists have long been used as the pathos arguement for some to sequester common value away from the common good so it can be sold back - "intellectual property" has always been a device to impoverish the many for the enrichment of afew liars and tricksters. The artist never truly needed any of it - except for the ones who thought they would get as rich as the Beatles - they wiggle and howl in protest and spend all their ill-gotten gains on lawyers, and their music is not worth paying for.
# Posted on May 23rd 2011 by Mozle