The ‘right’ of musicians to get paid
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- The “very common” myth from people disputing business models mooted for content creators is the idea, “but… but… content creators have the right to get paid” or “we need to protect the right for the musician to get paid,” says Mike Masnick on TechDirt, going on »»»
That implies — falsely — that anyone discussing these alternative business models believes that the content creators have no right to get paid. But that’s not what anyone’s saying at all. It’s a total strawman. What we’re saying is that you need to change the way you do get paid. No one is trying to take away the rights of anyone to get paid. Some of us just don’t like artificial, government-structured taxes that force people to pay when it’s not particularly reasonable nor efficient.
With the above in mind, Masnick says he’s having a lot of trouble with a set of Future of Music Coalition principles.
“Considering that the whole thing is supposedly based on ‘the right of musicians to be paid for their work,’ it’s no surprise that the ‘principles’ seem to miss the point by a wide margin,” he posts, adding:
“They all seem focused on making sure that any tax, collective licensing, voluntary licensing, whatever scheme includes the artists getting their cut.
“But what it doesn’t discuss is why do we need such licensing schemes at all? Why not just let musicians come up with the various business models that work. No one’s trying to take away their ‘right to get paid.’ We just think that — like everyone else — they should earn it not by some sort of welfare/tax/licensing program, but through making use of business models where open and willing transactions are made.”
Good one.
TechDirt – Can We Please End The Myth That Anyone Is Trying To Take Away ‘The Right Of Musicians To Get Paid’?, April 3, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am
The solutions for getting the artist paid while computers are around are there.
But their applications are delayed by the parasites in charges of the major entertainment (but not entertaining) corporations.
Either they will step down or will be exterminated to let these solutions out.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I first read that as “The ‘right’ of musicians to get laid” ;p
April 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
^^ Isn’t that the non-financial part of the deal? heh
Cheers!
April 6th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I think some musicians shouldn’t have the right to get laid.
: )
April 6th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I don’t particularly trust the “Future of music coalition” myself:
1. Anybody seeking to preserve (or tighten) the current legal mess — to put it bluntly — doesn’t give a damn about art, creativity, innovation, or anything else: it IS “all about the Benjamins” with them, and they’ll gleefully resort to having the State act as “Leg-breaker” for them, if they don’t get their cut.
I mean, come on — anybody who actually believes in copyright “protection” for almost a century beyond their own death is — how do I put this? Morally suspect? That’ll work.
2. I’d take the “future of music coalition” far more seriously if they were advocating that “work for hire” type contracts be abolished. If copyright really IS about “protecting the artists”, then it stands to reason that the artists shouldn’t have to sign away their precious, precious monopolies just to get distribution. To my way of thinking, the only ones whose efforts should be regarded as “work for hire” are: sound engineers and distributors. If you’re going to “brand” your product with the name of an artist, then that artist — NOT some weasel in a suit and tie — should get ownership of the master recordings.
(That is, of course, assuming that copyright ever DID benefit “the artists” — which has never historically been the case, as we’re all well aware…but their rhetoric is always about “the artists” being “protected” so I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.
3. The ultimate strike against any such “coalition” (and anybody who’d be a member of it) is that they conspicuously fail to say they won’t lobby for longer copyright terms in the future. That’s not good — to put it mildly. Everything else they say that they’re about stands or falls on whether they can be content with the monopoly privilege they have NOW, or whether they’ll claim to need “more” in the future.
The Eldred decision leaves the door for this WIDE OPEN, in that it explicitly allows Congress to arbitrarily extend copyright terms, RETROACTIVELY, at whim, just as long as it remains a “limited” time on the books. In other words, “infinity by increments.”
So no, the “Future of Music Coalition” isn’t just bullshit — it’s DANGEROUS bullshit, in that it’s just the Status Quo masquerading as reform.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
When you really get down to the basics, the whole “copyright” bit was developed to make sure that Person (or company) B does not make a profit for artist A’s work with out A’s consent.
Whether the artist A gets paid for his work, solely depends on who will buy his work, and that is dependent on if his work fits the demand. At present, the companies that license A’s work are choosing the demand, whether it fits the market or not.
Historically, artists/musicians were patronized by an handful of aristocrats, and yet most of the famous artist/musicians would still need to make a living- whether it by Leonardo DaVinci designing weapons and drawing portraits of local aristocrats, or Mozart performing for an audience. In any case, the artists/musicians had to adjust their work to make a living. This culture has lived on, many years after their passing.
Now “artists”/musicians and even more so, cooperations, think that they should be able to choose what the buyer wants as well as have infinite control of works that have been produced.
I have translated interview of various bands from around the world during a “World Band Fest”, who think it’s “cool” to end their interview with a comment on how evil it is to “Pirate their music off the internet”, and that everyone should “buy” their new CD- and yet I can’t help but think “Who are you? You may be known in your backwater town, but not here”. The point being, is that no one will pay for a product that they do not demand, and limiting their choice only kills the demand.
When will people learn that if their “product” is not making money, maybe there is a problem on how it is sold.
Just my two cents
April 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I liked a lot of the early FMC work, but lately … I don’t know. Their desire to aim for a musician’s middle class seems to not factor in a lot of what’s actually feasible for the rest of the food chain, so while the end result is desirable they don’t seem to acknowledge some of the give and take that is needed.