[MatthewHiscock]

Hi all,

I figured some of you might dig a piece I just wrote for Music Think Tank. It's broadly about copyright reform from a (Canadian) musician's perspective:

http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/how-are-we-gonna-pay-these-musicians.html

Love to hear your thoughts,
Matthew

[btrower]

I like the fact that you engage in the discussion.

This may be true (from your article):

"Most people would agree that artists should be paid for their work"

I am not sure that I agree with this personally and I have a strong suspicion that even *my* opinion has been swayed by the relentless advertising and lobbying of the media. Sure, all the people who stand to gain by a regime that pays for certain expressions will promote the idea that 'most people would agree' that certain expressions be subject to a tax of some kind.

Whatever the current copyright regime is, it was based on an old social covenant that no longer holds. Once, it cost a fair amount of money to produce and disseminate a work. Many people were involved and the process of creation consumed materials and cost money. For the most part, that is no longer the case.

I am producing an expression right now. Should I expect that I get a piece of some broad tax? What should that be based upon?

People generally do not have a good understanding of distributions. As you mention in your article, certain expressions 'catch fire' for whatever reason and become extraordinarily popular. For a tiny few of the people creating expressive works, this can lead to riches. However, for the vast majority of the people who create this stuff -- even very popular stuff -- there was never that much money to be had.

Most of the actual working musicians I have known have made their livings doing other things. If they are good and they are dedicated and hard-working they might be able to make it doing live shows. A friend of mine who used to make his living on the road now makes his living as a music teacher. The teacher job pays more than the performing job ever did and due to the exigencies of life on the road, the performing job took a terrible toll on his health, his relationships and his happiness.

From a public-policy point of view, I am inclined to think that abolishing copyrights and any form of 'tax' on media is the optimal path for the public good. This would cause some short-term pain for a few people who make large profits from various media, but it would generally be better for the overwhelming majority.

Really popular artists make money now and they would make money under a no-copyright regime. Less popular artists make no money now and would not make any less under a no-copyright regime. At least on a no-copyright regime they and their families would be able to afford to listen to great music.

Some endeavors such as blockbuster movies are problematic. I am not certain how we deal with that, but I am very much disinclined to maintain a crippling regime of copyright in order to keep them going. Besides, entities such as Troublemaker Studios are leading the way to producing 'blockbuster' movies for more reasonable budgets. I have seen some very entertaining stuff on YouTube produced for essentially nothing.

One of the things that bugs me about paying artists just for being artists is that it will inevitably lead to some legal definition of 'artist' and that will of necessity exclude most of the world's great artists. What's the point?

I consider my software (some of it) 'art'. A bit of code written by me is all over the place. I released that for free and I would do it again. Actually, I will be doing so as soon as I feel what I am releasing is sufficiently amusing. I get paid to produce software, but only new stuff, only one time and I really have to work hard for my money.

I *do* think that we should value all types of expression, including things like dance. Everyone should have at least a shot at earning a living. Repressive copyright regimes are absolutely *not* the answer, in my opinion, to the questions "how do we pay artists?" or "how do we ensure the promotion of useful expression'.

[Sean Hunt]

Creative creators (it's important not to think of this in terms of just musicians, but everyone) of all kinds certainly deserve compensation for their work. Cultural development is vitally important, so we should try to make sure that it isn't a horribly unrewarding path.

That said, there is no particular reason that the 'creator withholds goods pending payment' model needs to be applied. There are many other ways to distribute wealth; my personal goal in copyright reform is to move society towards something where creators are fairly compensated for their efforts, but in a manner that encourages further cultural development - no hoarding of information - and doesn't rely on broken models.

[Concerned Citizen]

"Most people would agree that artists should be paid for their work"

Actually I think the wording should be something like "Most people would agree that artists should have the opportunity to try and be paid for their work" because by creation alone does not guarentee anyonew will like it or even want to pay for it.

The problem is that the technology to use entertainment while simultaneously being hard to store/record and duplicate was a fluke of technology. It was this particular set of technology which brought rise to the concept of 'Copyright' in the first place... The printing press (the written word), the phonograph (sound), the photograph (pictures) and ofcourse a culmination of them resulted in the motion picture (movies). Slowly this inbalance which brought about 'copyright' in the first place is being corrected by advancements in technology.

Ultimately the way to make money from creations is to go back to the original models that were around BEFORE the invention of entertainment capture/replay technologies became commonplace. Things like working on commission for just about any creative output, being sponsored by a wealthy benefactor for painters, musicians relying on booking live performances or street corner busking, etc... the Internet provides even more methods to acquire payments. Like someone said earlier about accepting donations then releasing content when a certain level of donations are met, which is effectively taking the idea of commissioning a work and spreading the cost across a larger number of individuals. Although it may not be a case of holding information 'hostage' so much as needing money to take it to the next step. Sorta like this Pioneer One project is doing.

Ultimately the cost of copying something is effectively zero, you need to figure out a new method of acquiring payment. With the way things are going that happens sooner rather than later. Plus we cannot ignore the propaganda put forth by creative industries equating copyright infringement with THEFT. Such a connection fostered in the minds of the less educated masses could surely force people into treating even personal copyright infringement as a criminal offense.