Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Good Copy / Bad Copy Copyright law


Rabs

Recommended Posts

I started it but couldn't finish. As usual, people think that taking other peoples art and "repurposing" it shouldn't be a violation of copyright laws.

 

I think the only people that have b1tch with copyright laws are people that have zero creative ability and have never created or had a need to copyright anything they have created.

 

They also believe that other people should work for free, but I'm sure they feel that they should be paid well for whatever they do.

 

Old story. Laptops and cool beats don't make it any fresher or smarter. Get a job kid, that's about all I would be able to tell him.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started it but couldn't finish. As usual, people think that taking other peoples art and "repurposing" it shouldn't be a violation of copyright laws.

 

I think the only people that have b1tch with copyright laws are people that have zero creative ability and have never created or had a need to copyright anything they have created.

 

They also believe that other people should work for free, but I'm sure they feel that they should be paid well for whatever they do.

 

Old story. Laptops and cool beats don't make it any fresher or smarter. Get a job kid, that's about all I would be able to tell him.

 

rct

Its just interesting seeing other points of views.. they go around the world to places like Nigeria and talk to their copyright people.. And yes that kid was annoying :) what he was doing isnt what I call music.. But thats not the point. The point is seeing this from all of the different sides.

 

Theres one bit with this guy who looks after all of this old video footage all on reel to reel tapes (from the 50s & 60s).. He was like, no one is paying for this stuff it just sits here doing nothing. So if we were to put it online and let the future generations use this to help inspire their creativity and which will bring in some money for the owners of the content, wheres the bad in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rct...

 

I dunno... I've made my living and on occasion a few extra bucks with creation or performance of "intellectual property." And I've done some significant copyright work.

 

And frankly I think the whole copyright system got so broken in the '90s that it has lost its intent and turned into a more tightly ruled game as opposed to protection of the creator of intellectual property. That wasn't what the intent was when it was written, but it became a consequence.

 

The whole game came with a lot of legal updates in that time period supposedly to reflect changes in technology. In the US, "telephone" technology was also involved.

 

But nobody came close to imagining the Internet, let alone cell phones with web connection, when that stuff was being written.

 

To me, the result has been decreasing protection of the creator, increasing protection of various "biggies" who can game the system, and greater confusion as to what even approaches making sense.

 

I really think there's been so much change in the past 20 years that it's time for a wholesale revision of copyright law and, from what I've been told by some folks, even patent law.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milod:

 

I completely agree that intellectual property laws, particularly as applied to music and the people that make it, need serious major overhauls that won't happen in my lifetime nor my kids.

 

There are two kinds of people carping all over the internetz about copyrights and how stupid they are, and both kinds appear in that video.

 

1.) Laptop musicians. Don't need to say much more than that.

 

2.) Corporate shills that do nothing but whine and warn about the evil corporations trying to seize the property of college dorm rooms from mis-informed kidz downloading JoBros videos.

 

There are two kinds of evil corporations:

 

1.) Record companies and their vast distribution networks. These guys, bad as they are, are the only ones looking out for music creators, and the music creators are nothing more than collateral damage to their own profits. If these guys had no stake in it, musicians woulda been lost as workers that are paid for their efforts a long time ago. I don't care how bad they are, they can get for me and you and everyone here reading this the pay that we don't have the money to enforce action in order to get.

 

2.) All the other companies that want royalty-free non-copyrighted material from which to profit without limit. Nobody seems to get that, nobody seems to want to discuss that. The vast way most majority of copyright/intellectual property infringements are brought by writing/publishing/rights control houses against Movie, Television, and Performance type organizations that are using material without proper payment to the rights holders. Those guys want to make a commercial without paying me for my music, have my music setting the mood of their movie without paying me, and on and on, for everyones music here.

 

It really is that simple. If Group 2.) can persuade Group 1.) to join their ranks, we as music writers/arrangers/creators/performers/producers/rights holders will all be screwed, and I see it as only a matter of time before they do. They've made great strides in de-balling all types of recording "contracts" and assigning rights for all perpetuity to the legal department, and these kids just keep signing. Each and every flawed contract that does not regard rights to the property being performed or created is another step on the way to there being no property rights for anyone, and then free and unlimited profit by using it without compensation.

 

Just my experience and two cents is all.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Theres one bit with this guy who looks after all of this old video footage all on reel to reel tapes (from the 50s & 60s).. He was like, no one is paying for this stuff it just sits here doing nothing. So if we were to put it online and let the future generations use this to help inspire their creativity and which will bring in some money for the owners of the content, wheres the bad in that.

 

And that's true. There are two problems with that:

 

1.) The utterly crushing costs of doing what is suggested. Some punk using some laptop to mash up Marx Brothers and WCField bits into new forms of videotainment is not ever going to follow through with the heirs and rights holders to all of the associated estates required to do it right. Remember, Jr does this with his laptop because mom thinks he'll make seriously good money while living in her basement, he isn't doing it to become an employer and pay other people.

 

2.) Once you get to video related content, you are now brawling with the movie/cable/teevee conglomerate monsters, and anyone can assure you, they will NOT be giving up even three seconds of video content without compensation for material that they own the rights to, which is more and more of the available material. They don't even want you to be able to tivo without looking at commercials, they consider non-commercial on demand type television entertainment to be theft forfuxsake.

 

It's a pretty much multiple edged sword that in all reality is one form of corporate inolvement against another form of corporate involvement. Musicians? Who the eff cares about them maggots, we got margins to make here.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not up on all the corporate bureaucracy or political back-stabbing, nor do I give a rats a$$.

The bottom line with this for me is, I do not, nor will I ever, consider "sampling" a talent.

My nephews are into this crap. And they have a musical background so it baffles me they consider this an art form.

But we live in an age of technology that we can't deny. It breeds this kind of genre. I will never accept it as anything other than a rip off.

But they and their buddies think this is cool because they see their heroes putting out this garbage.

They think that finding a sample that is in the relative minor of another sample, or building a I IV V out of 3 samples is somehow musical.

I just don't get the whole DJ thing. I fail to see the talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All kidding aside, I think we simply need somehow to think outside the box.

 

The old system is more than broken.

 

As a writer/photographer and at one point, guy seeking to figure how to copyright choreographed material, as well as performer and occasional writer of music, I think today I'm in a different world than in 1975. Or 1985. Or even 1995.

 

The digital millennium copyright act passed in the US in 1998 - for all intents, in a rare and very non-partisan effort - was a good idea, but I think we should consider two effects.

 

First, it functionally requires a lawyer to figure out what it means in comparison to the earlier law I felt rather comfortable with in legal terms. It also allows continuation of the ridiculous claims and bullying of the ASCAP and BMI organizations in North America that claim to protect musicians and composers, but that's only the few biggies and their own legal departments.

 

Second, although intended to take in and adjust to technological change, it utterly fails to consider some realities of "creators of intellectual property" in that the media mix and access perceived to be the case in 1997 is at minimum, 15 years out of date in an era when a year is "forever."

 

I have some strong feelings on this that extend well past anything I may have written, photographed, performed, or recorded.

 

For one thing, the rise of such as Facebook, etc., and the "Cloud," brings to me a question whether creators nowadays own much of any "rights" in comparison to the media where they are stored and perhaps are available to the general public.

 

For example, I can write a novel or compose and perform a song, and, as things are going with computing nowadays, store it on "my" section of a for-pay cloud.

 

In theory, that's my copyrighted material. In practice, it's under the control of the company that owns the storage space. The site dies, I may or may not keep up payments, the site is opened to others to mess with material stored there regardless of "understanding" of material, and I simply have lost some or all of my rights to my own material.

 

My wager is that "intelligent devices" will have functionally decreasing control by "us" as local storage and interoperability decreases.

 

I've already had some discussion with some folks pretty well "up" on the "big issues" of computers and I'm quite cynical about the effect of current changes in technology without concurrent legal protections of one's creations.

 

In effect, current trend is engaging the "storage unit" paradigm. We rent space and regardless of value, if we don't pay, or we fall ill or drop dead, we or our estate functionally loses any rights to the material. It's just like the TV shows where physical storage units are opened and auctioned to those who might then seek to sell all or part of the material.

 

In short, all copyright protection is lost.

 

Secondly, we have to consider variations of the longtime "fair use" doctrine as well as ongoing definition of what constitutes copyrightable material.

 

If I mentioned names, many on here would recognize the lawsuit, but an acquaintance of mine went bankrupt attempting to litigate protection for his own book and ideas after they were somewhat fictionalized and made into another novel and then motion picture.

 

Regardless whether he had won or lost, I think the precedent is that lawsuits involving copyright are incredibly expensive as well as complex and ... that we here have little or no way to protect ourselves whether we feel our material is taken without payment or whether we modify the work of others and are sued by someone with deep pockets.

 

Again, to me it's a matter of the law and, as we've seen on the Gibson forums, even argument over copyright being far behind the curve of reality.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think we are missing the point slightly here.

 

Which is how sharing and mixing has become part of human culture worldwide. And its here to stay so we had better get used to it. In some of the poorer third wolrd countries (as in the documentary (did anyone actually watch it?) this sort of mixing and the re-doing of popular westernised music is not a new thing. Thats what they do. Take a westernised song and add say latin beats and bass behind it to suit their peoples tastes more..

 

Now with technology we are looking at a worldwide version of this. Where someone say in Brazil re-mixes a song, then that re-mix goes back to the country it came from where some kid like in the video above re-mixes their re-mix...

 

Lol I dont really dig it.. But its becoming part of the way people around the world communicate and share ideas with each other..

 

As for if I agree with it or not.. My view is as long as your not making money off it then I dont have a problem with people sitting at home and experimenting with music.. I bet you most of these kids that start on computers will eventualy want to learn a real instrument later down the line (ive seen it before, its a natural progression).. Also remember we are the guinea pigs of technology.. Its all still so new and is still evolving. In ten years from now it will all be totally different (if not 5 years).

 

I just hope the same laws that eventally come to govern the internet dont actually end up infringing on our privacy and freedom (which is what the big arguments are about).. After all its the freedoms of the internet that have led to as many amazing uses as it has bad uses.. The internet and technology is just a tool.. Its how we use it that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rabs...

 

In most ways I agree with you, and we're from quite different age groups carrying, in general, different perspectives on the Web.

 

The problem as I see it is that things have changed so much the past 10-15 years that "we" haven't collectively really figured how to cope with it in legal terms.

 

And, like it or not, "ownership" of various sorts of "intellectual property" such as music is gonna be a major point of legal gamesmanship for the forseeable future.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...