Artists divided on copyright law

January 22nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm by David Farrar

Another good article in the Herald on the problems with the new law.

A number of artists who are members of ARPA, are disagreeing with that body’s support for the law. This isn’t a case of artists vs users. Many from the creative sector are aghast at the new law.

It should go without saying that copyright is an important economic right. Producers of works should be able to benefit from their creations.

But the music industry’s tactics are short-sighted and counter-productive.

A couple of years ago I spoke in Hawaii at a form on intellectual property. It was to an audience that was 100% pro-IP and pro-property rights. Fellow panelists were from major drug companies, major IT companies and the like. So this was not some sort of geeky “everything should be free” gathering. Think the opposite.

What I found fascinating was the near total disdain the other intellectual property proponents had for the tactics of the music and entertainment industries. They regarded them as damaging the overall cause of respect for intellectual property rights through their efforts to criminalise half the 15 year olds in America, and boot the other half off the Internet.

Within NZ, I am told the local reps for the global entertainment industries are quite good types. The problem is they have no ability to vary the line dictated to them by the US based mutinationals.

One bright note on the copyright front, is that the White House is now licensed under Creative Commons.

Tags:

11 Responses to “Artists divided on copyright law”

  1. Michael M Wilson (55 comments) says:

    Sharing is caring

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. heisenbug (7 comments) says:

    I’m waiting to see the code of practise they’re drafting. From what I’ve read they’ve thrown out the presumption of innocence, so will cut you off and require you to prove innocence later. I’m not hopeful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    DPF:

    “….What I found fascinating was the near total disdain the other intellectual property proponents had for the tactics of the music and entertainment industries. They regarded them as damaging the overall cause of respect for intellectual property rights through their efforts to criminalise half the 15 year olds in America, and boot the other half off the Internet…..”

    Hear, hear. It would be poetic justice if these industries just fall over and artists supplying their product direct to the consumer via the Internet, became the norm. Look at Fat Freddy’s Drop, for example, just leave the greedy bastards at Sony out of it altogether, and because the music deserves it, it ends up selling moderately well anyway, and the Freddy’s get most of the 20 bucks that each disc sells for, instead of a few cents……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Flashman (184 comments) says:

    The latest twist in this saga of insanity comes from the UK: music played over the radio [or via a commercially recorded CD] in the workplace is now liable for a royalty fee payable by the employer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Atheist1 (174 comments) says:

    whoops posted in wrong item. I’ll try again

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Sonny Blount (1,848 comments) says:

    Flashman,

    The same applies in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    I don’t know why NZ doesn’t do the same as the Isle of Man where they’re planning to charge all internet users a *small* fee for immunity against copyright charges in respect to downloading music.

    The money will then be passed on to artists in much the same what that APRA does that here in NZ with money collected from broadcasters, cafes and others who license the “right to use” such music.

    Simple, affordable, lawyer-free and (if my calculations are correct) a win for all concerned.

    It’s quite interesting that the IOM opted for this plan shortly after I wrote a column suggesting it might be the best way to handle things.

    Coincidence? Of course. But, strangely enough, I know a guy who’s best mates with a bloke that is part of the IOM bureaucracy responsible for the move.

    Must check my server logs for IOM requests :-)

    I’m publishing another awful story about the recording industry and recording rights tomorrow too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Rich Prick (1,659 comments) says:

    Now I find this issue really interesting and illustrative of how a lobby achieved something with a Government prepared to fawn all over the “arts”. I know a member of APRA who banks cheques on a regular basis. This person was appalled when I happened to mention that I had a couple of compliation cd’s in the car player that I had put together. I asked about what sort of back-up he had for his vital software, answer was three copies of the critical ones, all copies of IP, but he explained that that was “different” but with no reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    If you’re wondering why so many people use copyrighted music tracks unlawfully (without the appropriate licence) then check my column today.

    Clearly the recording industry isn’t past shooting its feet to smithereens, despite finally catching onto the notion that the Net isn’t out to destroy them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Who decides who is artist anyway?

    I would cross the street to pee on most of the overpriced lowlifes who get government funding these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Alan Wilkinson (1,866 comments) says:

    aardvark is right except that as he demonstrates in his latest column the recording industry doesn’t deserve any further legal assistance whatever.

    It should be left to crash and burn, reaping the just rewards of its assaults on its own customers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.