Comments on: The Music Piracy Complex - Part 1 http://www.theglobaloutpost.com/archives/61 Real World, Music Industry Views Sun, 25 Jun 2017 17:14:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Not Taylor Swift http://www.theglobaloutpost.com/archives/61#comment-2364 Not Taylor Swift Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:29:28 +0000 http://www.theglobaloutpost.com/archives/61#comment-2364 This is an excellent piece that puts music piracy into perspective and gives us musicians a better understanding of what we are up against. To the comments above by Jacques, I am not sure of what his point is as the author of the article has made it very clear that it is this very 'obfuscation' that has messed up the understanding of piracy and how some big organizations are getting away with it. This is how it is currently and the article has certainly opened my eyes to it. I might not be Taylor Swift, but something needs to be done about it. This is an excellent piece that puts music piracy into perspective and gives us musicians a better understanding of what we are up against.

To the comments above by Jacques, I am not sure of what his point is as the author of the article has made it very clear that it is this very ‘obfuscation’ that has messed up the understanding of piracy and how some big organizations are getting away with it.
This is how it is currently and the article has certainly opened my eyes to it. I might not be Taylor Swift, but something needs to be done about it.

]]>
By: Jacques Bailhé http://www.theglobaloutpost.com/archives/61#comment-2160 Jacques Bailhé Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:34:24 +0000 http://www.theglobaloutpost.com/archives/61#comment-2160 The author begins with a premise based on “little clarity or delineation between the legal and ethical definitions of piracy….” This doesn’t seem quite right. Certainly the courts and others have both inadvertently and intentionally obscured and obfuscated the issue, but the basics of copyright law, upon which all other matters of use and compensation stand, are abundantly clear. Professor Green at Rutgers and others argue that “file-sharing is not piracy,” fallaciously reasoning that when a file is shared, the copyright holder still holds that copyright. Of course the copyright holder still owns the copyright! That’s not the point. The issue is that their copyright (the right to make copies) has been illegally violated. Copyright law clearly delineates the rights of ownership. Violations of that right are as plain as day and any suggestion that “legal and ethical definitions of piracy” must be more clearly defined is intentional obfuscation that leads us away from the fundamental issue: failure to enforce well established copyright law. The author suggests the advent of business models built on streaming brings “a new mode of consumption as well as remuneration…and institutionalized piracy. The concept of piracy will change as a consequence whilst the industry struggles to define what it encompasses.” That notion serves only to further bury copyright law in high-sounding gibberish. It is well established that the principle of copyright does not change due to new forms of transmission. The law plainly says that I alone control the right to determine how and under what circumstances my work may be copied, transmitted or otherwise used and that I alone have the right to require payment for any such use as I see fit. If consumers or intermediaries don’t like my terms, they can choose not stream (and thereby copy) my work, but if they do transmit (copy), they are not allowed to unilaterally decide to pay, or not pay, as they wish The author discusses Stewart Brand’s misquoted comment that “all information wants to be free,” but seems to miss the point. Some distort Brand’s ideas into an authoritative opinion that music and other copyrighted works should be free. Again, this is inane obfuscation. Certainly, some types of information should be free and, as laws make clear, are therefore not subject to copyright: public records, ideas and information that are not in a physical, copyrightable form. Original work in physical form such as inventions, art, and other types of information, are however covered by copyright law specifically because of the well-defined benefits to society created by rights of ownership and limitations on use specified in those laws. Conflating all types of intellectual work into an undifferentiated, abstract notion of “information” completely overlooks that a physical object containing information must exist for copyright to be obtainable. More importantly, it destroys the social benefits that copyright law was specifically created to preserve. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law). Using Brand’s comment as an all-encompassing principle fails to recognize the obvious differences between inventions and artistic creations and other types of “information.” While illegitimate businesses built on copyright infringement may produce significant profits, they corrupt and destroy an ordered market for invention and artistic creation, and thereby, not only the social benefits of copyright law, but also the monetary value of invention and artistic creation. This in turn destroys, as the music recording industry’s demise shows, what would otherwise have been an overall business value exponentially greater than what pirates and others are pilfering. Enforcement of copyright law is the responsibility of government, industry, and the creators of inventions and artistic work. Suggestions that tracking use and collecting payment is difficult and therefore constitute an unreasonable burden, is also an attempt to obfuscate the primary issue of lawful conduct. General Electric produces millions of light bulbs, but successfully tracks and collects profit from each one every day. Certainly, a lawful music industry operating in an ordered market can do the same. Without enforcement, neither business nor artists can enjoy the many benefits of an ordered market and both business and artists abandon the social value copyright law was created to protect. The author begins with a premise based on “little clarity or delineation between the legal and ethical definitions of piracy….” This doesn’t seem quite right. Certainly the courts and others have both inadvertently and intentionally obscured and obfuscated the issue, but the basics of copyright law, upon which all other matters of use and compensation stand, are abundantly clear. Professor Green at Rutgers and others argue that “file-sharing is not piracy,” fallaciously reasoning that when a file is shared, the copyright holder still holds that copyright. Of course the copyright holder still owns the copyright! That’s not the point. The issue is that their copyright (the right to make copies) has been illegally violated. Copyright law clearly delineates the rights of ownership. Violations of that right are as plain as day and any suggestion that “legal and ethical definitions of piracy” must be more clearly defined is intentional obfuscation that leads us away from the fundamental issue: failure to enforce well established copyright law.

The author suggests the advent of business models built on streaming brings “a new mode of consumption as well as remuneration…and institutionalized piracy. The concept of piracy will change as a consequence whilst the industry struggles to define what it encompasses.” That notion serves only to further bury copyright law in high-sounding gibberish. It is well established that the principle of copyright does not change due to new forms of transmission. The law plainly says that I alone control the right to determine how and under what circumstances my work may be copied, transmitted or otherwise used and that I alone have the right to require payment for any such use as I see fit. If consumers or intermediaries don’t like my terms, they can choose not stream (and thereby copy) my work, but if they do transmit (copy), they are not allowed to unilaterally decide to pay, or not pay, as they wish

The author discusses Stewart Brand’s misquoted comment that “all information wants to be free,” but seems to miss the point. Some distort Brand’s ideas into an authoritative opinion that music and other copyrighted works should be free. Again, this is inane obfuscation. Certainly, some types of information should be free and, as laws make clear, are therefore not subject to copyright: public records, ideas and information that are not in a physical, copyrightable form. Original work in physical form such as inventions, art, and other types of information, are however covered by copyright law specifically because of the well-defined benefits to society created by rights of ownership and limitations on use specified in those laws. Conflating all types of intellectual work into an undifferentiated, abstract notion of “information” completely overlooks that a physical object containing information must exist for copyright to be obtainable. More importantly, it destroys the social benefits that copyright law was specifically created to preserve. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law). Using Brand’s comment as an all-encompassing principle fails to recognize the obvious differences between inventions and artistic creations and other types of “information.”

While illegitimate businesses built on copyright infringement may produce significant profits, they corrupt and destroy an ordered market for invention and artistic creation, and thereby, not only the social benefits of copyright law, but also the monetary value of invention and artistic creation. This in turn destroys, as the music recording industry’s demise shows, what would otherwise have been an overall business value exponentially greater than what pirates and others are pilfering.

Enforcement of copyright law is the responsibility of government, industry, and the creators of inventions and artistic work. Suggestions that tracking use and collecting payment is difficult and therefore constitute an unreasonable burden, is also an attempt to obfuscate the primary issue of lawful conduct. General Electric produces millions of light bulbs, but successfully tracks and collects profit from each one every day. Certainly, a lawful music industry operating in an ordered market can do the same. Without enforcement, neither business nor artists can enjoy the many benefits of an ordered market and both business and artists abandon the social value copyright law was created to protect.

]]>