Monday
May042009
Stop Stealing From Artists
My friend Kate Taylor is a wonderful recording artist. She was on an amazing career path in her younger years but stopped to raise a beautiful family on Martha's Vineyard. Life was simple then. You went into a studio, cut a record on vinyl and it sold in stores. There was no Internet and certainly no way to share music files. You simply had to purchase a record, and that was that.
Now, Kate has begun to record again but the world has changed. She can't be guaranteed that what she records or performs will be compensated.
Things have changed now and file sharing abounds. People do not feel they are "stealing" music if they share it with "friends" – even if these friends number in the thousands and the sender might not have ever met these "friends." The artists have been before Congress for years, ever since the famous Napster hearings. The very first time Congress took up the issue of "file sharing," aka "stealing," was during those hearings. It has been coming up time and time again. The artists are getting savvy and political, and they need to. Their livelihoods are at stake.
The artists want absolute protection. Simply put, if you use it, you pay for it. Often songwriters receive a small up-front fee when a song they write is recorded. The songwriter/artist might also be expected to pay for the production costs. As a result, their front end net payment is often miniscule. The songwriter/artist expects that he or she will make money from what is called "performance" royalties. Each time their song is preformed or played, they receive a royalty payment.
China is not the world example of human rights or copyright protections. Just go to any market in China and you will find illegal copies also known as "bootlegs," of songs, movies, books, computer games and just about anything that someone else creates and they can copy. These copies make their way back to the United States and deprive the artists of royalties from the burgeoning markets of China and Asia. The United States has not made this a priority in trade negotiations with China. It has been brought up but has no teeth. Unlike textiles or electronics, it has a very small constituency, and there is little political downside to dropping this from the negotiations. If you don't protect textiles and food, you could lose the voters from an entire state. Currently you can give up on Hollywood and hope you can take rest of the State of California.
The United States has stepped up prosecution for individuals who have been caught downloading music. It has hoped that prosecution of college students throughout the country will send a very strong message that that United States will act decisively to protect copyrighted material. The problem is that people still go to concerts, illegally record them and then make those tapes available. This is also done with music. It is easy to go into Staples, buy 100 CDs and disseminate your own playlist from your wedding or birthday party. If you have a lot of friends, as many as 300 people could be getting music for free. This is illegal. It is the same as purchasing a book, taking your personal copy machine, making multiple copies and distributing them for free.
You may quibble with the price of a CD these days, but it is hard to dispute the fact that the songwriter/artist is entitled to fair compensation for their work. Congress needs to recognize this and act now.
Now, Kate has begun to record again but the world has changed. She can't be guaranteed that what she records or performs will be compensated.
Things have changed now and file sharing abounds. People do not feel they are "stealing" music if they share it with "friends" – even if these friends number in the thousands and the sender might not have ever met these "friends." The artists have been before Congress for years, ever since the famous Napster hearings. The very first time Congress took up the issue of "file sharing," aka "stealing," was during those hearings. It has been coming up time and time again. The artists are getting savvy and political, and they need to. Their livelihoods are at stake.
The artists want absolute protection. Simply put, if you use it, you pay for it. Often songwriters receive a small up-front fee when a song they write is recorded. The songwriter/artist might also be expected to pay for the production costs. As a result, their front end net payment is often miniscule. The songwriter/artist expects that he or she will make money from what is called "performance" royalties. Each time their song is preformed or played, they receive a royalty payment.
China is not the world example of human rights or copyright protections. Just go to any market in China and you will find illegal copies also known as "bootlegs," of songs, movies, books, computer games and just about anything that someone else creates and they can copy. These copies make their way back to the United States and deprive the artists of royalties from the burgeoning markets of China and Asia. The United States has not made this a priority in trade negotiations with China. It has been brought up but has no teeth. Unlike textiles or electronics, it has a very small constituency, and there is little political downside to dropping this from the negotiations. If you don't protect textiles and food, you could lose the voters from an entire state. Currently you can give up on Hollywood and hope you can take rest of the State of California.
The United States has stepped up prosecution for individuals who have been caught downloading music. It has hoped that prosecution of college students throughout the country will send a very strong message that that United States will act decisively to protect copyrighted material. The problem is that people still go to concerts, illegally record them and then make those tapes available. This is also done with music. It is easy to go into Staples, buy 100 CDs and disseminate your own playlist from your wedding or birthday party. If you have a lot of friends, as many as 300 people could be getting music for free. This is illegal. It is the same as purchasing a book, taking your personal copy machine, making multiple copies and distributing them for free.
You may quibble with the price of a CD these days, but it is hard to dispute the fact that the songwriter/artist is entitled to fair compensation for their work. Congress needs to recognize this and act now.
tagged 
Ellen Ratner in Frontpage 1, News/Commentary, Opinion, United Nations
Ellen Ratner in Frontpage 1, News/Commentary, Opinion, United Nations
Reader Comments (5)
"...it is hard to dispute the fact that the songwriter/artist is entitled to fair compensation for their work."
Agreed. But to insinuate that the record companies/publishers pay artists "fair" compensation is erroneous. The record companies are a big reason why piracy of music is what it is, overcharging for CDs.
Ironically, studies have shown most who pirate music actually turn around and buy more music than the average consumer. Many artists that don't get airplay on radio have found that releasing songs to file sharing sites actually drives purchases, while avoiding the record companies altogether.
> Congress needs to recognize this and act now.
What do you suggest Congress do? Ratchet the penalties up to an even more ridiculous level?
For an interesting perspective on what _artists_ can do to solve this problem, check out http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13915
[...] VIEW ARTICLE SOURCE [...]
Hi Ellen,
You said, "The artists want absolute protection. Simply put, if you use it, you pay for it."
Copyright law is something I am familiar with. The bottom line is that you don't get to make money off of somebody else's work. The recording industry, for the most part, are a bunch of weasels, and the consumer knows it. Enlightened artists who have their own websites and welcome downloading are thriving.
I'm older than you, so I'm not one of the file sharing generation, but I know artists don't (and shouldn't) have an "absolute" right to be paid everytime somebody plays one of their songs. They are not entitled to what the U.S. Supreme Court called "multiple tribute". It is (and should continue to be) perfectly legal for me to buy a CD/DVD and make a copy of it to use, thereby extending the life of the product I PAID for.
The recording associations are in the habit of deception. Like you, they seldom define their terms unless cornered. They wanted people to have "clogging licenses" just to dance for free at old folks' homes to the music of a DULY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR tape or CD. They tried to pretend that the statutory language "compensated for performance" was identical in meaning to "reimbursed for expenses." When I offered to go into federal court in a "friendly" declaratory judgment suit, the chief counsel for BMI admitted that I was correct.
The reason the standard industry practice is to 1) pick on poor people who don't know the law and don't have the money to hire a good lawyer, and 2) ask for "statutory" damages instead of actual damages is precisely because these manipulative scum cannot prove how me dancing for free to a copyrighted record negatively impacts the sales of their record (I already bought my copy) or their ability to make money.
There is enough ignominy regarding this issue to go around for everybody, so I wouldn't bother wasting my time trying to sound overly noble, if I were you. A huge majority of music consumers already know better! (And that doesn't count the clueless purple-haired nose prongers who couldn't care less.)
Your old libertarian pal,
John Wilkenson
If it can be digitized it can be copied. Simple as that. All forms of information distribution are going to radically change. Attempts to force people back into old paradigms with regulations will fail utterly.
Information producers will have to adapt or perish professionally. People want good information and entertainment and will pay for it as they always have. New and hitherto un-thought of ways to market it will emerge. As my old teacher used to say, "Put on your thinking caps".