A very interesting take on music "Piracy"...i agree

[S t e v e]

piracy

[Rabs]

Yeah this is a very dodgey topic which I have followed since day one as I was in the Multi Media industry so effected us directly.

 

Over all the years ive read about this I think theres one main point to be made was that the record companies were so greedy, if they had offered decent prices rather than ripping us off for years this may never have even happened, certainly not at the rate it did.. The movie and TV industry is now going through the same thing with services like Netflix and Love Film popping up, they have finally caught on to the fact that they cant stop it so may as well monitise it..

 

The media industries are slowy changing now but its taken them like ten years to catch on.. What really annoyed me was when they started charging £25 for classic albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Sgt Peppers.. So I say they brought this on themselves.

 

They will stop piracy by taking the torrent and filesharing sites down one by one (like Megaupload that was taken down recently).. and they will (or should) provide more legit services so that the public can access the content they want at a reasonable price and online... But it will take time.

[cabba2203]

This is what I imagine when I picture those people who download stolen media from those sites. They most likely are doing it on a MAC, own a Che Guevara t-shirt (or had at one time) and believe religiously in “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” - The same type of misguided fool that made up the majority of those "occupy wherever I can squat" rallys.

 

I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire. Just my opinion and we all know how those go....

[Malchik]

They will stop piracy by taking the torrent and filesharing sites down one by one (like Megaupload that was taken down recently).. and they will (or should) provide more legit services so that the public can access the content they want at a reasonable price and online... But it will take time.

Yeah, but remember, most torrent sites and file hosting sites are not even on US soil, so most US copyright laws do not apply to them. Megaupload was unfortunate enough to have an office in America for the feds to cease. Although America is battling tooth and nail to harmonize international copyright laws, the problem does not lie on the availability, or the format. I remember twenty years ago, everyone had masses of home recorded movies that were tapped off of TV. Where there is a will, there is a way. The film industry is bringing in record profits today despite torrents.

 

You know, even if the states get their way and black list websites or bring citizens into court for millions of dollars, most media corporations will not adjust their prices a cent. That's why they are attacking the service, and not the problem: themselves. You raised a good point about companies charging stupid prices for their content, but they are above seeing the irony of them paying millions of dollars trying to pass bills like SOPA than adjusting their market practices.

 

I look at it this way, I put my heart into my playing and if I was to be lucky enough to have someone offer to publish and market my work then it would be "Happy Days" for me. There is a cost in doing business and everytime those torrent sites allow copyrighted materials to be shared is money out of everyone's back pocket from the original writers of the material; those who played it, and the entire food chain. This is one reason we see outlandish prices at concerts; they have to make up the money somehow.

Unless you're Paul McCartney, you're not getting the kind of royalties that will keep you off the road. Remember, the label funds your studio budget, they own your master, and they pay the same royalty percentage that was agreed upon when signing the recording contract. The bands that sell their music on iTunes or self produced CDs are making more than the percentage on their content, they just don't have the name-sake to make corporate distribution. You may get a big budget to record your albums, but you'll be paying it back with your record sales.

 

Touring and merchandising was always the bread and butter for artists. I can still see Grand Funk at my casino for forty bucks. It's only the Super A-list artists that swindle their audience. That's another issue that's effecting the music industry. Only Pop artists are bringing in billions of dollars. Most all metal, punk, alternative, blues, etc., are now entirely cult. Their audiences are at their shows, buying their merch/CDs, and putting money directly into the artists pockets. I have respect for artists like NIN and the likes, that are taking advantage of digital distribution and saying "**** it" to labels and are generating their money through their own means. The music industry is also dying becasue artists don't need them to fund their record. You can rent a decent studio for a few hundred dollars for a good six to eight hour. Engineering, producing, and recording is now in the hands of the common man.

 

I paid twelve bucks to see KISS in 76 and 79, around 15 for the 3/4 concert shirt and those days are long gone....

Yeah, but I could also buy a pack of smokes and a tank of gas for under twenty, and still have enough to go to the pub. Also, KISS wasn't the over exaggerated corporation that it is today.

 

I would also like to take a moment to express my satisfaction for my KISS mug and KISS latex condoms.

 

This is what I imagine when I picture those people who download stolen media from those sites. They most likely are doing it on a MAC, own a Che Guevara t-shirt (or had at one time) and believe religiously in “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” - The same type of misguided fool that made up the majority of those "occupy wherever I can squat" rallys.

 

I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire. Just my opinion and we all know how those go....

Hey, why stop there? If I were you, I wouldn't miss the opportunity of using "black, commie, hippy, liberal" when making generalizations.

[cabba2203]

 

Hey, why stop there? If I were you, I wouldn't miss the opportunity of using "black, commie, hippy, liberal" when making generalizations.

 

Sure, but you'll find "commie, hippy, liberals" are not race specific. Mkay?

[alexri]

It's more important for people to listen to music than for record executives to make money.

[milod]

As one who has created copyrighted materials for a living all my adult life, I won't claim I don't believe in the concept - but the current "thing" is not what was envisioned.

 

And believe me, I'm as far from a Che leftist as one might go.

 

I think you can make a case against entire CDs being downloaded, cover and all; I think you can make a case against selling CDs in cases that are entirely manufactured illegally.

 

But the way I see things going... naaah. I'm not even going to call it piracy unless you're talking about the new ways we're seeing music and other materials distributed.

 

Bottom line is that the creator of the material is the last to see a penny on most material, and the "copyright licensing agencies" are bullies who are working mightily to close down live venues even if we're talking "singer songwriters" or true "folksingers."

 

How? In the first case they say there's no way for a venue to prove they're "innocent" of acts using "copyrighted material," and in the second case, they claim ownership of material that's been otherwise in the public domain since before the English Civil War, let alone the first (1770s) or second American one.

 

Another point, one can question even one's "ownership" of a music file nowadays. We used to have a solid "thing" that could make music; now we have nothing but a computer file that may or may not be usable on a given platform that it's supposedly designed to play on. We're on the way further where we don't even have physical possession of a data file, but supposed entry to a file on a cloud somewhere that may or may not be there tomorrow. That being the case, we own nothing and pay money for the "right" to listen - sort of.

 

I guess all that spoils my inclination to defend copyright laws.

 

OTOH, one must needs be concerned about ASCAP/BMI and such because technically if you play a copyrighted bit of music, technically you've "stolen" it. Think about that one folks. Your head in ways is an analog storage device that might replay through your hands and vocal cords. And if you think I'm kidding, think about the logical extension of where we're headed now.

 

m,

[RaysEpiphone]

All very interesting to talk about, copyright law state's that your allowed to listen to the song(s) after you pay for it/them. You are still allowed to make one copy for backup, on every different media format you own, CD, tape, hardrive (in any or all the format's) etc.

 

Club's, bar's and other venue's that have any/all type's of music will pay yearly fee's to ASCAP and BMI etc... to cover any money(s) owed from band that perform cover's of copyright song's. The set amount this fee will depend on the zip code & capacity of the the building, I believe it's more dependent on the capacity of the building but like about every thing else, where your at will likely come into play.

 

There are some night spot's in my area that won't let you play there unless you do your own song's and you will get kicked off the stage if you play a cover. And I have many time's went to website's and seen the notorious, "This video has been removed by", where the last time I was there there was some movie or music or something that was likely copyright protected stuff so it's been going on for some time now.

 

12 buck's to go to a rock show in 1976!!! That was a lot of cash for a concert back then, Kiss did have a large production but so did other act's like Alice Cooper. I remember seeing an interview with Alice back in 1978 or 1979 where he was asked why he puts on such a grandiose spectacle, his answer was, "Well, people pay 7 or 8 dollar's to see my show so I just want them to get there money's worth".

 

McCartney get's "0" royalties for the Beatles sale's now, that all goes to Sony Music. He does still collect from his own song's from his solo project's but the Beatles stuff was bought out first by Michale Jackson in the 1980's, he later sold them to a bunch of internet entrepreneurs. Sony spent money and time to track down all of these entrepreneurs and took control of the Fab 4's toon's. I do however believe that you still have to ask permission from Paul and Julian/Yoko and Cynthia, I actually did this for a video project (never completed) and heard back from all the original writer's for the song's I was planing to cover or from there lawyer's. Bruce Springsteen was the only one of the 5 that turned me down for permissions to do the project, after I stopped production I didn't follow up on 1 of them but the others said OK.

 

And to all you Mac hatter's there, now go back to your menu based OS and please stop giving the Mac a bad name.

 

Yeah, I've watched Youtube stuff and have uploaded my band's cover's but I don't do it on a large scale deal...I'm not advertising myself everywhere as, "the guy with a web channel that constantly keeps a huge cash of copyright stuff on my play list". I'll likely start feeling guilty about the few toon's I've done this with and go back and delete them before long.

[flyingarmadillo]

All very interesting to talk about, copyright law state's that your allowed to listen to the song(s) after you pay for it/them. You are still allowed to make one copy for backup, on every different media format you own, CD, tape, hardrive (in any or all the format's) etc.

 

...

 

 

Actually, copyright law says no such thing as far as limits. It says you're allowed "fair use" of material (books, photographs, movies, music, etc.) that you've purchased for personal use. You can make as many copies as you want as long as they're for you - you just can't sell them or even give them away without paying additional fees to the copyright owner.

[charlie brown]

Yeah, ASCAP/BMI has been hassling a lot of area bars/clubs, that USED TO hire bands!

The operative words there, are "Used To!" They no longer do that, because of the

dues, and/or unbelievable fines, they could endure. So, the local/area "live music"

scene, what little of it there was, effectively no longer exists! At least, at this

time. Our band, is one of several, in the area, that has been a victim, of that fallout!

 

NYE, was the last gig, my band did...and it was in a different state, out in a "boon docks"

bar/grill. No one wants to chance the fines, or pay the yearly fees, apparently. So...???

 

CB

[daveinspain]

Sorry don't agree with that article at all... No copy right laws??? So where does that end? If I right a song and put it out on the market anyone can copy my song sell it and keep the money? I don't think so... Adjustments need to be made and are being made but total music sharing is steeling from the author. If you don't write or if you write but don't publish I guess it doesn't matter to you. Try investing thousands of dollars on computers, software, studio gear, guitars, keyboards, or whatever money you may spend on a recording studio if you don't want to make the large investment in your own studio. Then add all that to your personal time and creativity it takes to write a song and get it to the point of marketable.

 

There is always talk about the fake Gibson being made in China and being sold in as real made in USA Gibsons, is that ok? I don't think so either...

[RaysEpiphone]

I'm pretty sure Gibson has hired the Chinese manufacture to build guitars for them. It cost's so much less to manufacture in China (for many reason's) so Gibson has a whole line of low cost guitar's that they have made over there while they still make the main line here in the state's. Labor/labor laws and the materials used is the big reasons here. I like my Chinese made Epiphone, best low cost guitar's I've ever had, but I'd rather have a real Gibson, just not got the cash right now.

 

That don't meen that there are no fake's around and some one bought the cheep one (official or not) and disguised/sold it as one of the US made one's, I'm sure it happens, but there are way's to spot a real one for a fake ether way.

 

I can't even begin to think of how much I've blown, saved, sold, lost, broken, traded, pawned etc. on gear over the past 25+ year's. And I would likely cry if I sat down and added it up.

 

Yeah "Fair use", that's the new sanitized name for it...stay tuned as it will change sooner or later.

[charlie brown]

I'm pretty sure Gibson has hired the Chinese manufacture to build guitars for them. It cost's so much less to manufacture in China (for many reason's) so Gibson has a whole line of low cost guitar's that they have made over there while they still make the main line here in the state's. Labor/labor laws and the materials used is the big reasons here. I like my Chinese made Epiphone, best low cost guitar's I've ever had, but I'd rather have a real Gibson, just not got the cash right now.

 

That don't meen that there are no fake's around and some one bought the cheep one (official or not) and disguised/sold it as one of the US made one's, I'm sure it happens, but there are way's to spot a real one for a fake ether way.

 

I can't even begin to think of how much I've blown, saved, sold, lost, broken, traded, pawned etc. on gear over the past 25+ year's. And I would likely cry if I sat down and added it up.

 

Yeah "Fair use", that's the new sanitized name for it...stay tuned as it will change sooner or later.

 

Ojection! Pure speculation. Unless you're talking about Chinese made Epiphones....Where's the proof of that?!

 

CB

[milod]

Actually ASCAP/BMI do not check playlists on live venues. They do bully live venues into buying a license that does nothing whatsoever for the original creators of copyrighted material or even for the big companies that own copyrights on some of that material.

 

In fact, even were you to sign an ASCAP/BMI contract and had some local air time, the odds of getting a dime from that airplay is just about nil given that such stuff is done by "sampling" in theory, not full air time playlists.

 

The bottom line is that some media purchases, physical media or digital-only, may go to artists. "Big name" artists may get some royalties from air play and "covers" depending on who wrote the material and how it was licensed. That's about it.

 

Fair use is a longtime doctrine that allows me as a journalist to do a book review, by the way. Or even to quote someone in an interview or from a speech. In theory one would "own" one's own words and only through the fair use doctrine might they be used.

 

The problem with current copyright law is that it's pushing the envelope of today's technological reality using laws and concepts from the era of physical media even before analog media such as "records" and "movies" were invented.

 

So... First, don't believe anybody who tells you how the law really protects the artist. It mostly protects copyright licensing companies and big-name recording labels.

 

Second, while it's obviously "wrong," if not illegal, to sell collections of others' copyrighted material without license, recording what one listens to on radio, television and/or Internet for personal use is still a matter of interpretation and ongoing case law.

 

m

[Guest farnsbarns]

As far as I am concerned all the pro piracy folk are kidding themselves, justifying actions they know are wrong really. If someone is selling a product and you judge it to be overpriced is it OK to steal it? NO! Just because it is very difficult for them to stop you stealing it doesn't make it right either. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. By all means protest about it, refuse to buy it, listen only to radio etc etc but theft? nope, it's wrong on every level.

 

As someone who develops software and sees people attempting to steal it (rarely succeeding as I make it almost impossible to run without the correct environment) I just can't imagine why people think, because it is abstract, digitised, data that it is somehow a free for all.

 

I recently uploaded a web based app to my customers web space, this was basically a 2-bit developer who they had ditched but wanted to carry on using her resold web space. I have never let this piece of work outside of my own network before so I wrote into it, a function where it would email me the minute it was run on a different domain. It took 48 hours for that developer to log in to her customers web space, download all the files and attempt to run the app under a different domain. I sent an email to her and got a cock-and-bull story about here running security tests to check the script was secure since it was running on her server. I pointed out that the freeby off the peg script she was previously using for the customers contact form had been allowing spammers to send email to 3rd parties for some years and she had not even noticed. Some people!

 

Stop stealing!

[Guest farnsbarns]

The bottom line is that some media purchases, physical media or digital-only, may go to artists. "Big name" artists may get some royalties from air play and "covers" depending on who wrote the material and how it was licensed. That's about it.

 

Not quite the full story Milo.

 

Artists with decent management have what is known as a "black box" clause in their contracts. The collection societies pay out to record companies who have enough registered works (Enough is surprisingly few actually) based on market share and those artists who's management looked out for them when signing the deal get a share based on their total sales. It's not a perfect system but the cost of actually logging every play of every song in every venue would be colossal, it would mean paying £1000 to get into a a live venue so that's not the answer. The answer is get a decent manager before you sign with a label and you'll get yours. If you go in blind and get no black box clause (and many have, some people who are now quite big names don't/didn't have one) then more fool you. We live in a capitalist society and it is down to the individual to protect their own interests.

 

Theft is still theft, regardless of your opinion of the entity you're stealing form.

 

And you can play a song on your guitar to yourself all day long, you are in no danger of infringing copyright, you can even play it to a group of non paying individuals on private property. You just can't perform it in public without having a license.

 

I can certainly sympathise with those who feel record companies make too much and this and that is overpriced but I feel the same about Ferraris, that doesn't mean I'm gonna steal one.

[daveinspain]

 

 

I can certainly sympathise with those who feel record companies make too much and this and that is overpriced but I feel the same about Ferraris, that doesn't mean I'm gonna steal one.

 

 

I might add if you want to listen to the song for free turn on your radio and wait for it to come on. If you want to hear it whenever you feel like it, buy it...

[marvar]

Yeah, ASCAP/BMI has been hassling a lot of area bars/clubs, that USED TO hire bands!

The operative words there, are "Used To!" They no longer do that, because of the

dues, and/or unbelievable fines, they could endure. So, the local/area "live music"

scene, what little of it there was, effectively no longer exists! At least, at this

time. Our band, is one of several, in the area, that has been a victim, of that fallout!

 

NYE, was the last gig, my band did...and it was in a different state, out in a "boon docks"

bar/grill. No one wants to chance the fines, or pay the yearly fees, apparently. So...???

 

CB

I'm not sure about now a days, but, when I was studying this stuff in the early 90s-if you use ANY commercial media: reoords, tapes, digital, jukebox, radio- in your bar/establishment, you are still required or subject to pay ASCAP/BMI. It doesn't apply just to live music.

[pippy]

Just going off on the subject of 'Live' performance for a moment; this has always been a difficult problem to address.

 

'Way back when', in the days I used to play in public, it was a neccessary requirement for those who became members of the Musicians Union to draw up a set-list of songs performed each time the band played and to send this list to the aforementioned union so that they could then tell you how much was owed to the Union who would then forward the monies raised to those who held the copyright for the songs.

 

Fair enough in most cases, but It was a long-winded process and it was open to much abuse. If a new set of lyrics was written for pretty much any 12-bar blues then all songs performed were 'originals'. I'm not just talking about those very anonymous 'Status Quo' or AC/DC -style riffage. Listen to these two tracks recorded by two very well known and highly regarded artists;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ9a9nFrRRI

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-uJovsQwkI

 

Should Robert Cray pay Peter Green royalties for having 'nicked' the melody-line some 30 years later or is changing it by, say, 15% and putting it in a different key enough? Did PG, himself, lift it from an earlier work? He did that very thing quite a few times - most commonly with the well-known 'Elmore James' intro which they used on 'Need Your Love Tonight', 'My Heart Beat Like a Hammer' and many others, but also for more complex works; listen to Jigsaw Puzzle Blues (if you have it) and compare it to Joe Venuti's similarly named piece.

 

I can't put any more media links here but a quick search on youtube will find it in a fraction of a second. PG is crdited as writing it on the PG album, BTW. Jimmy Dorsey's clarinet part (from 2:02) was copied very closely by Danny Kirwan on his 'second verse' of the Fleetwood Mac version.

 

If you perform someone else's music it's only right that the writer should get his dues (literally!). But "The Blues" in particular is a difficult genre to police with any great accuracy.

 

P.

[Cecil]

This is what I imagine when I picture those people who download stolen media from those sites. They most likely are doing it on a MAC

 

 

This is one of the weirdest things I've read on this forum. And that's saying something.

[milod]

Farns...

 

I can't speak to the UK, but in the US as Charlie B has noted, ASCAP/BMI have shut down countless former music venues on grounds that bands/artists either were, or might possibly, play "licensed" music. And their definition of "licensed" includes such as Greensleeves that's obviously a folk song.

 

The "black box" theory is interesting too because neither ASCAP nor BMI will open how they do their sampling of music on the air. Period. And it is, after all, sampling, not a record of air play.

 

Bottom line? Yeah, if you're big and have a bunch of lawyers to mess with your contracts with one or the the other or both, you may get some royalties. If you're not, you don't see a penny regardless of regional air play.

 

That's part of why I say the system is broken. Period.

 

And yeah, I see my material distributed all over the web. Neither I nor the company that I did things for as "work for hire" sees a penny.

 

m

[Guest farnsbarns]

 

This is one of the weirdest things I've read on this forum. And that's saying something.

 

Can't disagree, the statistical certainty the vast majority will be Windoze users makes it even more bizarre. :D

[charlie brown]

I'm not sure about now a days, but, when I was studying this stuff in the early 90s-if you use ANY commercial media: reoords, tapes, digital, jukebox, radio- in your bar/establishment, you are still required or subject to pay ASCAP/BMI. It doesn't apply just to live music.

 

That's true! But, prior to just a few years ago, NO ONE hassled bar/venue owners, for having "live

bands" that played "cover" material. At least, not around here. Nowadays, strictly speaking, if your

band sets up, in the park, and plays "cover" material, even for free, ASCAP/BMI can fine you, for

doing so. Whether they would actually go that far, or not, remains to be seen. There are (nowadays)

venues in the cities, and college towns, that only allow "original (non-published) material" bands, to play.

They won't allow "cover bands," access, due to the fees, and/or fines, they'd have to deal with.

It was my understanding, regarding juke boxes (at least in the old days), that the juke box provider

company, that serviced and added/changed the songs included, footed the ASCAP/BMI fees, and not the

venue itself, unless the venue "owned" the juke box, as opposed to renting it. Now, it appears, at least, that

BOTH have to "pay the man!" ??? Not sure, as it seems to depend on who you ask, about all this.

 

CB

[Guest farnsbarns]

Farns...

 

I can't speak to the UK, but in the US as Charlie B has noted, ASCAP/BMI have shut down countless former music venues on grounds that bands/artists either were, or might possibly, play "licensed" music. And their definition of "licensed" includes such as Greensleeves that's obviously a folk song.

 

The "black box" theory is interesting too because neither ASCAP nor BMI will open how they do their sampling of music on the air. Period. And it is, after all, sampling, not a record of air play.

 

Bottom line? Yeah, if you're big and have a bunch of lawyers to mess with your contracts with one or the the other or both, you may get some royalties. If you're not, you don't see a penny regardless of regional air play.

 

That's part of why I say the system is broken. Period.

 

And yeah, I see my material distributed all over the web. Neither I nor the company that I did things for as "work for hire" sees a penny.

 

m

 

Ah, now then, I do know how they do it but didn't realise it was a big secret so I had better not put it out there. Did you register your works with ASCAP or BMI? Do you have an account there? If not, you wont see a penny but that's the fault of the publisher. I know artists, including some in the US dealing with ASCAP and BMI who have works registered and receive income for licensing, very small incomes so it seems size doesn't matter. I think half the trouble is bad management of works by publishers who don't have the first clue what they should do to receive income.

 

I used to do some work for The Ken Colyer Trust, they had a PRS (performance rights society (UK collection society)) License but they weren't providing track listings so they were paying a bill for every show. It wasn't until I found out that the trust owned the rights to most of the music that was being played at concerts that I said they should submit a set list, their bill all but disappeared. The guy who's job it was to deal with this stuff was clueless to the process and that usually turns out to be the problem in my experience.

 

I hear situations like yours (I am assuming the work isn't registered) where someone has put of piece of work out there and it get's stolen and used but the person does nothing about it. It's not the collection societies fault if someone steals and uses your work.If music you own has been used without your permission, and it isn't registered with a performance society, you have rights, have you or the owner sent cease and desist notices, have you/they attempted to claim compensation? If not, nothing will happen. You could register the works and then send your own usage data to ASCAP/BMI based on your knowledge that it is being used somewhere. The time and effort may not be worth it but that correlates directly with the fuzzy data model these collection societies use to calculate distribution of income. To do it accurately would be prohibitively expensive.

 

All this is besides the point really. If every company I judge to be morally questionable because of their practices or those within the industry structure is a fair target for theft I'll be stealing something from now until the day I die. Stop buying the product by all means, write to congress, start a lobby group, occupy woodstock, etc, etc, but stealing it, and attempting to justify that because of one's own distaste for the margins or the distribution methods is ludicrous. No one can actually believe that's right.

 

EDIT: I'm not getting on a moral high horse by the way, I was there on napster with the rest of them back in the day! I just don't try to justify by presenting the wrongs of the music as argument. I accept that it was wrong and I don't do it now but could I swear that if I was a hard up 19 year old that I wouldn't, I'm not sure.

[milod]

I think the Mac comment from the poster was more a political and cultural statement than anything else. There are more than a few folks who figure that the Mac culture is almost more a religion brought by smart marketing than a preference for hardware.

 

Many of "us" here use all sorts of computers for our email and other purposes; some of "us" have more computer problems than others.

 

Actually since Mac OS is functionally a proprietary version of Unix, we should note that there are also quite a few folks who don't bother with Mac and simply go directly to Unix since there's sufficient software to make it a somewhat less expensive alternative either to Win or Mac.

 

But meanwhile back at the ranch... I think this sort of question is not a "right" or "left" thing in terms of "politics," but rather a matter of copyright law being used/misused/ignored largely due to rapid changes in technology that nobody really was prepared for in the lawmaking system.

 

As I said before, functionally we're still using law and legal concepts developed in an era when print and live performances were all there were. Then things got fancier and the concept of "licensing" because of new technologies such as photo offset printing and recording music came along.

 

A difficult problem with changing copyright law has to do with the fact that we're such a global media audience that no matter what one might do in the UK or US or China, everyone pretty much agrees that the broader bits of law should be pretty much a matter of international copyright conventions that take time to change.

 

Meanwhile in the US, at least, there are some "local" (spell that "national") bits that have led to the killing of small music venues and the growth of giant corporations that have become bullies thanks to case law from the era when recording equipment was not at all common for the average person as it is today.

 

As I see it, copyright law is broken thanks to unintended consequences of case law in a different world of technology.

 

The result is exactly the situation we see now with a lot of argument from ignorance and governments that don't really know what to do that would both protect the artist and yet allow free flow of information of all sorts over the Internet. Case law, as I have watched it, on the Internet is running a bit strange.

 

m