Yup. The hack can't claim to be you though, so I don't really see a problem.
Then everyone benefits from having their best album in public domain, and the band is motivated to make some more good albums.
Marvin Gaye fam wins suit against Blurred Lines writers, precedent bans all music
- Thread starter Hygro
- Start date
Yup. The hack can't claim to be you though, so I don't really see a problem.
Then everyone benefits from having their best album in public domain, and the band is motivated to make some more good albums.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
What if the drummer bangs the lead guitarist's girlfriends, the band splits up, and their old music -now in public domain- makes loads of cash for publishers, but no money for the band ?
Or it was their magnum opus, and they'll never do anything this great again no matter how hard they try.
It's just unfair to those who don't have the name recognition and hype to sell 100k units in their first week.
How is a publisher going to loads of cash from public domain music and recordings? The cash all goes into (or stays in, but essentially the same thing) the pockets of the consumers.
I guess the broken up band will have to get some real jobs. Copyright law shouldn't be about being fair to creators, it should be about maximizing public good.
Mind you, I'm not particularly opposed to 10 year copyright, but I'm not convinced that it would be particularly better or worse than 2 year.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
2 years seems a bit short. But 200 years seems like a bit too long.
20 seems like a good compromise.
20 seems like a good compromise.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Somebody will print/press/distribute and sell the CDs, books or files. People still buy books that are public domain.
I dsagree with the premise and the method. Copyright should be fair to creators and have the public good in mind. If you make it harder to make money for new artist you will get fewer new artists, and the ones you get will be less original and willing to take risks.
Compromise by picking a random value is the wrong way to do it - effective compromise happens by evaluating the objective outcomes of the various available options.
There's essentially zero cost of distribution of public domain media.
That's covered by public good already. Public good involves balancing the encouragement of new media creation with minimizing the cost of existing media.
Nobody else in the free market has their "fair" salary protected by government regulation, I don't see why media creators should get special protection.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Minimum wage, collective bargaining rights, several worker protection laws, etc.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
A LOT of artists out there are creating music, art, and other creations - and aren't really getting paid that much for it.
The most original art I've seen came from people who weren't really getting paid a lot to do it. Conversely, those who make millions tend to more often than not stick to well defined and well understood parameters - they want to maximize how much money they make, so they take less risks - they use cookie cutter methods of music creation, for example. It is a bit of a generalization - but it works both ways.
If you took all the artists in the world, the median income that they receive for their creations would be incredibly low. People create art for many reasons other than money. The drive to create will be there whether copyright laws are changed or not.
It should go without saying that a trial court ruling has basically zero legal precedent, so Marvin Gaye's family getting paid is not the end of all things.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Another video illustrating the whole "all pop songs are pretty much the same song" phenomenon
Link to video.
edit: some inappropriate language, watch out.
Link to video.
edit: some inappropriate language, watch out.
Crackerbox
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 721
I'm trying to wrap my head around this issue. I can't see how the family could have won? This isn't like the Vanilla Ice debacle at all where it was obviously lifting from existing music. I'd think musicians themselves would be completely up in arms about it.
Compare that old controversy versus this one.
Link to video.
David Bowie "Under Pressure"
Link to video.
Vanilla Ice "Ice Ice Baby"
Compare that old controversy versus this one.
Link to video.
David Bowie "Under Pressure"
Link to video.
Vanilla Ice "Ice Ice Baby"
The problem with Blurred Lines is the background beat really sounds like a sample of the Marvin Gaye song. Like, 100% the same. So to many people's ears it is 100% lifting old music.
I had to listen very closely to them both one after the other to discern the fact that it was not actually a sample.
I had to listen very closely to them both one after the other to discern the fact that it was not actually a sample.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah but like.. a lot of songs do this - they take a sample from another track and make it their own.
It's kinda the whole song.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
For what it's worth, the case doesn't set any precedent, but instead follows existing precedent that a sufficient similarity is adequate to demonstrate infringement. See Arnstein v. Porter.
Crackerbox
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 721
I listen to a lot of diverse music. Of course internationally, musicians build upon their experiences of music they encounter. Not only this, but then emulate them within genres of music.
When sampling of music first occurred, it was very controversial and declared to be outright stealing sometimes.
At a certain point, you have to challenge it, but I don't know, is this a good way to proceed for musicians?
It actually has some bearing on computer code and lifting from it as well.
Copyrights show up in strange ways. It used to be that they were based upon a long length of time, but say in the case of a pharmaceutical drug, it lasts a matter of years. But some publishers have managed to recopyright media, so who knows how long media like songs will last in the future? Contrast that with sampling or even altering the auditory qualities of the sample to distort it, and it's very muddied.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Ah.. well that's different indeed, then.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Yeah, well, OK...
I might have exaggerated. Still, copyright law shouldn't be designed in a way that it almost guarantees that some people don't make any money, and musical instruments and studio time need to be paid for.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah, I agree; it needs to be a good balance between the needs of the artists and the public good. Right now it's sort of lopsidedly stacked in favour of the artist .. or err I mean the recording studio and/or IP holder..