ASCAP declares war on Free Culture

[uncloned]

The free culture movement is abuzz today over news that ASCAP has requested their members to fight organizations like Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation over what it claims as an effort to undermine copyright.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89494/ascap-declares-war-on-free-culture/

ASCAP raising money to fight Free Culture



http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/23/ascap-raising-money.html


http://twitpic.com/1zai6e

http://twitpic.com/1zai66


editor's comment - me thinks they just want to fleece what they consider to be stupid people (i.e. clients and public) of $5+ checks...

[Louigi Verona]

Yeah. Well, let's see.

[uncloned]

from slashdot

"As an experiment, composer Jason Robert Brown logged onto a site illegally offering his sheet music for download and contacted hundreds of users politely asking them to stop listing the material. Most complied, some were confused, and a few fought back. Brown chronicles a lengthy exchange he had with a teenage girl named Brenna which provides an interesting insight into the artists' perspective of the copyright debate. He also responds to several points raised in comments to the article and says, 'I don't wish to be the enemy; I'm just a guy trying to make a living.'"



http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_copy.php



My answer - if you make a reasonable living why not share the rest?

[Louigi Verona]

The way I support myself and my family is through the sale of those songs, on CD's, in sheet music, in tickets. Sheet music represents almost half of my yearly income.

That's the problem. He relies on sheet music. In this age you cannot rely on selling printed copies of your work - technology took care of that. He can send out 400 letters, 4000 or 40000 - it doesn't matter. To be honest, this girl's arguments were not so strong, but the arguments of the composer were even weaker.

[KrazyKatz]

My answer - if you make a reasonable living why not share the rest?

So he's not entitled to make more than a reasonable living?

In this age you cannot rely on selling printed copies of your work - technology took care of that.

Just because technology gives the means to make stealing easier, doesn't make stealing right. And one shouldn't just give in, because then people lose sight that there is something wrong with it.

[Louigi Verona]

So he's not entitled to make more than a reasonable living?

Why not? He is perfectly entitled. But if making more than a reasonable living means restricting the freedom of the whole planet, then no. Or else he is entitled to make more than a living using other methods, which would not declare millions of people "criminals".

Just because technology gives the means to make stealing easier, doesn't make stealing right. And one shouldn't just give in, because then people lose sight that there is something wrong with it.

Stealing in the digital age is stealing because the author and/or publisher ties real money to digital copies. It is their wrong, not the wrong of people who use technology a click away. If you seriously think that telling people that copying a file is wrong will actually some day make us all sit before a computer and go: "I can easily copy this movie with one click, but instead I will save up and when I have enough, spend a day hunting movie stores all over town to maybe find it" - then I think that you are being unrealistic.

[KrazyKatz]

...if making more than a reasonable living means restricting the freedom of the whole planet, then no.

The freedom to steal?

Or else he is entitled to make more than a living using other methods, which would not declare millions of people "criminals".

If you steal you are a criminal. Unfortunately since so many people do it, you don't see it as theft, just as I said, people lose sight that something is wrong with it.
So let's continue with your line of thought...

Stealing in the digital age is stealing because the author and/or publisher ties real money to digital copies. It is their wrong, not the wrong of people who use technology a click away.

I presume that the author owns the work and has the right to allow or deny people to view/listen/use their works. I also presume that they are entitled to charge for that use.
But let's assume you are right and the author is not entitled such.

I would therefore be fully entitled to obtain your DNA from someone else and not only use it for whatever I want, but make copies of it and share it with everyone else for them to do what they like with it. We could have an army of Louigi clones.

Technology allows this. Whilst there are differences in the replication, the same logic applies. Do you not feel entitled to the right over how a product of your being is used?

If you seriously think that telling people that copying a file is wrong will actually some day make us all sit before a computer and go: "I can easily copy this movie with one click, but instead I will save up and when I have enough, spend a day hunting movie stores all over town to maybe find it" - then I think that you are being unrealistic.

More people copy, not because it's so easy, but because they don't view it as wrong. (I'm going to test this theory by asking as many people as I can if they view copying a movie or song as stealing.) You could easily mug a granny, but most wouldn't because they inherently know it's wrong.
No doubt the simplicity and chance of getting caught copying is a factor, but I re-iterate that one should not state that there is nothing wrong with it just because it's so easy.

[Louigi Verona]

I would therefore be fully entitled to obtain your DNA from someone else and not only use it for whatever I want, but make copies of it and share it with everyone else for them to do what they like with it. We could have an army of Louigi clones.

We were speaking about copying music, not DNA. Do not try to make your argument stronger by coming up with weird examples which have nothing in common with the current discussion.

You can copy my music and use it in your movie or make a remix and you are not obliged to ask permission from me.

The natural right of the author is the right to first publication. This has always been so. When the work is in the public, the author has no right to control anyone who sees his work and now has a chance to use it or just get it.

You say "steal, steal, steal". There have been so many discussions pointing out that copying isn't stealing that I really don't see a point of even starting it here. Let's just agree that we seem to have a very different point of view on said matter. It is curious, though, to see that someone agrees with ASCAP and RIAA.

[KrazyKatz]

I don't know if I agree with ASCAP or RIAA because I haven't seen what they have to say. Once the war breaks out both sides will be spewing exaggerations. I use my own common sense on the piracy conflict.

My interest in the thread really stemmed from the debate between the composer and the teenager. My thoughts being, if this is the mentality that the youth are instilled with, we are setting ourselves up for a greater fall in the long run.

Is it such a leap to compare the results of music "sharing" to DNA?
When you donate your blood or tissue (enter it into the public), it can be transferred anywhere and used for whatever research any company wants. Do you have a say? No.

It's easy to see the wrongness of it since the example is extreme, which is exactly why I presented it. The mentality however is the same.

It is also for that reason that I call it stealing. Because once you start calling a murderer a gunman, your mentality of the murderer changes.

All this really shows though is that the matter has become entangled and complicated. Hopefully when I have time, I can present my own article that deals with the issue in it's entirely.

Until then we do indeed have very different points of view.

As always I do present my argument with respect and in the search for what is right.

[Louigi Verona]

Respect and search for what is right (or at least, as close to right as is possible at a given time) is a good goal for the discussion, but then it has to be a more careful one.

The debate between the teenager and the composer is a bad starting point because both have levelled really bad, inconsistent arguments and the whole thing is filled with emotion rather than reason. Any story can be compelling when presented emotionally and when both sides have a face - some would favour the girl since they associate them with her more, some with the composer. But none would pay attention to the issue at hand. Fortunately or not, copyright and ideas as property are complex questions which cannot be won by one argument "it's plain stealing. period" nor lost by one "copying is not stealing".

At the moment on linux audio mailing lists we are having a more than 100 letter conversation on the topic. To this date it is the most intelligent and useful conversation I have had on the subject as everyone manages to stay on topic, avoid insults and all seem to be sincerely interested to read other people's opinions and comment. The exploration of the subject has been immense.

Results of this conversation for me personally are enormous as I have received very valuable critique of my article on intellectual property and that allowed me to expand my understanding of the question significantly. If you are interested, please refer to "Authorship" section on my website which has my original articles and the review: http://www.louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=authorship

Hopefully, those articles manage to pass the message that the subject is much more complex than it seems and show how positive a debate can be.

I would not mind having such a useful conversation here.

And to start off (in case you want it) I would say that DNA is a bad example because it is physical matter and music are abstract ideas which have key differences. Any analogy between a physical object and an abstract idea will always be extremely harmful to a discussion. In fact, this is the main error we all make and critique I received came out of me making such analogies, though at a very low, almost subconscious level.

Second, copying is not stealing. These two events are inherently different, since stealing deprives one person of an object and the other gets the benefit, while copying leaves the copied object with the original owner.

However, it is understandable why that argument would be brought up.

As I pointed out above, copying can be stealing only indirectly, in the event of someone linking physical property to copies of a file, which by nature is just an array of numbers. (linking physical property to physical copies which can trivially be turned into an array of numbers is the same thing).
At that point it is very difficult to judge the act of copying. One can say that it is "stealing", thus judging the act of copying as a negative act from ethical standpoint. But on the other hand the act of linking physical property to copies of an abstract idea, such as an array of numbers, can also be judged negatively, referred to as "unpracticality" or even "stupidity". Further, it might even be considered an unethical act, since places the public into a position of a moral choice - to copy or not to copy? When the error is on the side of someone who decided to place his entire livelihood on an unpractical business model. When the law places heavy burden on the public in case of not complying with laws that enable people to make a livelihood, such unpractical behaviour can without much stretch be called "parasitism".
So you see that whether copying is stealing or not, is in itself a complex issue, but certainly you cannot say that it is, since directly it is not. And in fact, many real life cases tend to turn it around as I showed above.

Lastly, when discussing copyright law, we should differentiate personal relationships and what the law should say. A lot of the things which we have to respect in personal relations should not be enforced by law, that includes the above example with the teenager and the composer.
My view on that exact situation is complex. I cannot take any one side. The composer has taken time to contact people personally and I do not think that it is a bad thing in itself. If your friend asks you not to distribute his stuff, it would be good to comply if you value and respect your friend. If a person asks you personally, it might be good to comply if you like this person and respect him contacting you personally and ASKING rather than ordering.
At the same time I do not share this composer's sentiment that the author has some natural right to control what other unrelated people do with his creations. If it were true, any composer would gain almost infinite control over the whole planet by releasing his works. And this is what the law is trying to do, although in real life it is not the authors who gain power.

[uncloned]

what I am saying is that if we all want a better world then we all should contribute.

perhaps a composer wishes to maximize every cent they can make.

In that case I would suggest that one avoids such a composer's work. If he considers it stealing then fine, I won't take his sheet music and by extension add to his fame. The girl tangentially tried to say this.

I think if one is talented enough people will support you to continue your work even if they can have your labor for free. Its just like the guy in the subway or street corner - you hear the music for free and its your choice to throw some money into the instrument case. You are not forced to throw in the money to hear the music at any time.

What has, in my opinion, ruined the record companies, is greed pure and simple. Instead of producing a worthy product they enforce a law that they at one point were against - yes... it was posted here - I posted it - record companies wanted to record music and the people selling sheet music to be performed and recorded didn't want to let them "violate their copyright".

What is worse is when individuals are seduced by the greed - such as famously Lars of Metallica going crazy over internet sharing.


Artists, IMHO, should respect their audience more than to stifle the growth of the artform they claim to love.  Those that don't make me sad.

[Louigi Verona]

Yes, I agree. I read Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture". In it he tells what copyright law was before. Truly, if they did not make any changes to it, the case would've been closed. I thought "if things were like that, I would spend no time even thinking about it". It would not be a serious problem everybody is talking about. But they go over the top and start a war.

[residentgrey]

The war has no purpose as it's not really affecting copyright, at least that's what I am seeing.

It just looks like one company suing another for having a better or more popular product.

[KrazyKatz]

@ Uncloned. I might even be able to accept an answer that if people like your stuff, they will support you.
So go and ask people listening on their Ipods, how many songs they paid for?

Most will say none. Yet they do like and benefit from the music.

[uncloned]

people have paid for *my* music even though they could download for free.

and I have gone out of my way to pay INDEPENDENT artists I feel deserving my support. I paid for In Rainbows - $5 I thought was fair. Did you?

And I like Amazon mp3 downloads. I get my classical music there.

Of course I've shared music both ways with friends - you should have seen the collection of cassette tapes I have recently pitched - made from blank cassette tapes that were *taxed* by the RIAA who assumed I'd make copies and made me pay. Even if I used them to record my own music.  And remember - taping was suppose to kill artistic music. Actually in a way it did. There has been fewer and fewer good artists on record labels since the time of cassettes. But don't over look the thousands of dollars of music I have bought in my lifetime.



Perhaps I'm too old for your argument - my daughter pays for little of the music she listens to. She gets what she wants from youtube. And its nearly all independent artists. Like Gregory and the Hawk - or Pomplamoose.

Incidentally I bought pomplamoose. And quite independently so did my son. Even though we could get it for free. Interesting.

so... what was your argument again?