Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

ex member 892 Group: Members Posts: 827 Joined: July 2008 Posted: Feb. 20 2010, 14:44 This is something I've been somewhat conflicted and confused about for a long time. Do you think that we should abolish copyright? Or perhaps reform it, like Creative Commons wants to do? Is it so wrong to want to share something with other people? On the other hand, shouldn't it be the right of an artist to control what is done with his/her creations? I tend to lean more towards the latter, but what do you guys think? Back to top

larstangmark Group: Members Posts: 1767 Joined: Mar. 2005 Posted: Feb. 20 2010, 17:21 Short answer: no. With a technology that can make perfect copies in no time it doesn't make sense. How can society control that intellectual property is respected? It's going to be a question of moral more than anything else. I can see the point of society taking legal action against a person that goes into a store and steals a bag of potatoes. I have harder time understanding legal action against someone that copies the potato. And I realize that this means that the days of billion dollar productions (in both music and film) could be a thing of the past. But I'm not so sure it's a bad thing. Possibly this also means that less people can make a living from music and film, and why not? Let's spend a little less time in our offices and contribute to culture a  bit more. Lars T -------------- "There are twelve people in the world, the rest are paste" Mark E Smith Back to top

ex member 419 Group: Members Posts: 1177 Joined: April 2008 Posted: Feb. 20 2010, 18:13 Intellectual Property Laws are there to protect the owner of the work. Whether its an idea, a song, lyrics or a Doctoral thesis. In the world of internet share sites, downloads, sampling and mass reproduction of content at lightening speed, Intellectual Property Laws are inadequate because its impossible to police. I still think owners of work deserve to have their rights protected against opportunistic cyber theifs. Look at the huge cost to individual artists and record companies in lost royalties from illegal free download sites. Free music that should be paid for IMO unless the owner of the work is ok with downloads for a fan base only. Mike has been generous to fans with downloads. I don't have an answer to IP protection on the web but there must be some clever IT people out there that have the answer. Deb Back to top

ex member 892 Group: Members Posts: 827 Joined: July 2008 Posted: Feb. 20 2010, 18:37 I guess I'm thinking less about things such as people downloading a couple of albums off of some torrent site and more about large scale anti-copyright movements such as the Pirate Bay etc. that want to make it so that an artist has no right to his work, that anybody can copy, modify, or use it for their own means. Back to top

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: Feb. 20 2010, 19:31 I think copyright should be abolished only and strictly on the financial, money-related level, i.e. I don't think people should be obliged to pay someone else when they play or re-make someone else's songs. Of course I think that artists should retain the intellectual property of what they created, but they also should allow people to copy and re-do other people's stuff simply by asking an authorized use of their materials, without any monetary gain involved in it. For example, if I, as a musician, would like to record my own version of Amarok (I'm not naming TB because it'd be too obvious!! ), it would be really nice if I made a demo, had Mike hear it, and ask him (or his manager, or whoever else handles this sort of thing): "Do you like this? Would you allow me to record and officially release this?". Then, if Mike (or whoever) says "Yes", the record is released and it all stops there, with no legal red tape or whatever else. It could get more complex with samples, because artists should retain the right not to let people sample portions of his/her music if they don't like the use that's being made of the samples. But it could be the same thing as above: "Hey, Mike (or whoever else), I'd like to use a fragment of Amarok in a composition of mine which sounds like this and that and this and that. What do you think?" If the artist says "Yes", then the sample's usage is licensed, and all ends there. As far as I remember, Coldplay never paid Kraftwerk when they copied part of the German fourpiece's "Computer Love" in "Talk". They simply asked authorization to Ralf Hütter, Hütter simply said "Yes." -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

ex member 419 Group: Members Posts: 1177 Joined: April 2008 Posted: Feb. 20 2010, 20:21 Hi Ugo, you have highlighted two important points here. Firstly that the owner of copyright material should retain rights to their work. That said, in the case of artists wishing to "cover" an artists work, seeking permission and having it authorised should be enough, as it acknowledges the owner of the work. I don't think payment is needed for this. Secondly, sites like Pirate Bay are toxic. Allowing the use of an artists work without permission, refusing to acknowledge copyright and royalties payable is blatant exploitation. More and more sites like this are ripping off artists. Deb Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: Feb. 20 2010, 21:48 @Ugo.. Kraftwerk definetly recieved royalties for Talk,and are joint credited as such in the sleevenotes from X & Y. Back to top

Scatterplot Group: Members Posts: 1981 Joined: Dec. 2007 Posted: Feb. 21 2010, 00:32 If I spend 30 years(which is about right) learning to play multi instruments, FX devices, recording processes.....and then use my own personal emotion/intellect/"guts" to generate a marketable product, slaving for eternity take-after-take to record it, I expect to get paid if and when said product is marketed(correctly marketed). Correctly means my work is copyrighted and if it is plaigerized(sp), I want the option of suing the individuals in court. To me it's no different from a patent or a book by Stephen King. If I had a band named "Pall Mall"(Camel tie-in, I miss Andy Latimer) and we included "High Hopes" by Pink Floyd, played by us but credited as being written by us/me on our cd, I would expect to have my world screwed over badly. In fact I would demand it as I would deserve it since it would reflect my stupidity(or desperation).     I love copyrights and trademarks to protects songs and names like Steely Dan(or Dr. Pepper). I have no problem with downloading a CD or movie to play just for me(not copy and distribute for money). In fact, if I had a CD out there and I saw that it was good enough that it was on a torrent site I'd say, "dude, they like my stuff" and be flattered. But I'd still generate income and respect. My 2 pesos worth. -------------- We raise our voices in the night Crying to heaven And will our voices be heard Or will they break Like the wind Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: Feb. 21 2010, 08:26 In an ideal world if you took away the money then you would take away the problem.Or as the saying goes "We have become tools of our own tools" But then firstly we don`t live in an ideal world,and secondly part of people`s desire to make music is to get other people to hear it.As many people as possible if they`re being honest with themselves.Not every great composer/musician is a great marketer,distributer,producer or whatever.Even if you take away all the corporate industry behind that and you get people helping you that are good at those things.Then you`re still going to have major problems getting your music to the masses.If you take a look at the album chart in this country at the moment,it`s pretty much the "supermarket" top 30.Whatever you may think of that rightly or wrongly,the majority of those artists are in there because they have been heavily promoted and in the "right way" that suits the current trends.I`m not saying there is`nt some good artists in there (although there is a lot of insipid second rate bilge in there imo) I`m just saying that`s the way it is.     Personaly I think Jim/Scatterplot here has got it absolutely spot on for me.Copyright in all shapes and forms, is there for good reason,and as such the law has to be upheld.Yeah I`ve downloaded stuff from torrents/rapidshare etc,simply because I can.At the same time though I know it`s wrong,I know it`s against the law really.Sure I`ll maybe feel a little bit better that if the album is good enough then I`ll go out and buy it anyway.But at the end of the day not everyone does that,and if I`m being completely honest I can`t always afford to myself.I can`t say I know what the answer is really,but like most things it will probably reveal itself over time. I should add that I do like a lot of the stuff Lars says here as well.But I think for any of that to become viable and tangible in a major way,globaly.I think we`re looking at changing a lot of "mind-sets" and "desires" there.It is still the nature of the beast to be competitive is it not?We would need more of a fianancial level playing field worldwide for that to work I think.Or we would need to get rid of money.At this moment in time neither of those options look likely in the near future.Otherwise what you`ll end up with is people with a lot of money,and enough spare time on their hands making music for nothing for people who have neither.Or maybe they would just make it for themselves? Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Feb. 21 2010, 11:37 The paradigm is shifting once again. It has done so many times; we've moved away from music being exclusive to the nobility, from music being only heard in concert rooms, from music being published for people to play at home, from live-recorded wax cylinders, from mass produced vinyl records, all the way to this. We can't apply old rules to new paradigms, as a general rule, because we need to discard all the stuff that's not valid anymore. Intellectual property can have its fair uses, as much as it can have unfair applications. Many artists aren't owners of their music; and in the past, that was much more common. I'm all in for the artist being the rightful owner of his work, but I'm also all in for freedom of information and exchange. That's why I like the Creative Commons so much, and all my albums are released under its license. The idea has been inherited from the free software movements and licenses such as the GPL; in case you don't know, licenses like that have legal value, and you can't activate the Law against people who break it. The idea of copyright and intellectual property need to be used with ethics, and it needs to be adequate to the current times. There are lots of problems, though, and the world is filled with powerful people without ethics and dumb people who don't keep track of history. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4770 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: Feb. 21 2010, 18:16 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Feb. 21 2010, 11:37) The idea of copyright and intellectual property need to be used with ethics, I'm not disagreeing with you, Sir M, but your words invite the question: "what philosophy of ethics"? There are umpteen different ethical systems - that's why ethics is one of the four main divisions of western philosophy - and all will give you a slightly different answer to whatever moral question you ask. And what foundational system will you use to evaluate each system of ethics? Yes, I have a doctorate in philosophy.   Back to top

Ugo Group: Members Posts: 5495 Joined: April 2000 Posted: Feb. 21 2010, 20:33 @ Dirk: I'm not sure whether crediting someone in an album's sleevenotes necessarily implies that they have been paid. All I know is that Coldplay asked authorization from Kraftwerk to use their melody, Kraftwerk replied in the very simple way I described above and that was it. Could it be that the credit on the X & Y sleevenotes is just an acknowledgement of the melodic theft being fully authorized by the original composers? -------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian Back to top

ex member 419 Group: Members Posts: 1177 Joined: April 2008 Posted: Feb. 21 2010, 20:44 The Creative Commons Paradigm in itself is quite valid. An extension of the political philosophy of the "commons" accessible by all members of the community equally, with each member contributing to the management of the "commons" by selling goods others may buy at a reasonable price, or in kind, ie bartering. There is one obstacle for the Creative Commons. Free riding. Simply means some in the community do not contribute financially in the production or sale of goods and services. This is only a problem when "a few" take advantage of share sites for personal gain at the expense of the owner of the work. Copyright, Patent, Ownership, Integrity, Respect. All necessary in the instant download world of the web. Deb Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Feb. 21 2010, 21:32 Quote (nightspore @ Feb. 21 2010, 18:16) I'm not disagreeing with you, Sir M, but your words invite the question: "what philosophy of ethics"? There are umpteen different ethical systems - that's why ethics is one of the four main divisions of western philosophy - and all will give you a slightly different answer to whatever moral question you ask. And what foundational system will you use to evaluate each system of ethics? I avoided going there because that's a way too complex field for me to butt in (no sarcasm here), and the most I can say is that, and I guess we can all agree, some ethics is better than no ethics at all. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

ex member 419 Group: Members Posts: 1177 Joined: April 2008 Posted: Feb. 22 2010, 01:21 We have uncovered the Pandora's Box of etiquette and ethics, philosophies, legal questions and curly points surrounding IP on the Internet. Its global, there are multitudes of share sites. It really is impossible to police and the cost too great. Pirates can be tracked but sites appear and disappear with the click of a mouse. Google are going to charge for the use of its search engine. Fair enough I reckon. We are getting to comfortable with free access online. Twitter will get to a point when users will have to pay to use the site even though sites like this one subsidise Twitter so users can log on for free. It really is reaching a point of critical mass, something has to give. A bit like the recession, banks borrowing globally on the back of bad property deals, unable to call in repayments, banks go bust. It has got some implications for IP. A few multinational orgs controlling access and availability of content. Its evolving already, check out the orgs that offer social networking sites. They are the real money makers! Deb Back to top

nightspore Group: Members Posts: 4770 Joined: Mar. 2008 Posted: Feb. 22 2010, 06:48 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Feb. 21 2010, 21:32) some ethics is better than no ethics at all. Maybe... although I think I'd prefer to live in a state of anarchy than be subjected to the ethics of, say, the Taliban. Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: Feb. 22 2010, 07:48 Quote (Ugo @ Feb. 22 2010, 01:33) @ Dirk: I'm not sure whether crediting someone in an album's sleevenotes necessarily implies that they have been paid. All I know is that Coldplay asked authorization from Kraftwerk to use their melody, Kraftwerk replied in the very simple way I described above and that was it. Could it be that the credit on the X & Y sleevenotes is just an acknowledgement of the melodic theft being fully authorized by the original composers? Yeah I get what you`re saying there Ugo,but on the track itself, Talk.The entire band (Kraftwerk) are co-credited as songwriters.All the other songs are credited to the four members of Coldplay.That`s one thing I like about Coldplay in that Martin is quite obviously the main songwriter,but the entire band are credited on all of their songs.I`d be very surprised if he did`nt feel it was necessary to do the same for Kraftwerk`s "involvement" on Talk. In fact here you go they`re credited as "co-songwriters" here. Anyway here`s something for nothing  Our Love Was Saved By A Spaceman Watch the video,download the single for Free.   Back to top

ex member 892 Group: Members Posts: 827 Joined: July 2008 Posted: Feb. 22 2010, 16:23 I think it's fine if an artist wants to give away his music and make it freely shareable... as long as he chooses to do so... what scares me are organizations like Piratbyrån (The Piracy Bureau - founders of the Pirate Bay) that want to make it so that the artist has no choice, no right to his own work. Back to top

Scatterplot Group: Members Posts: 1981 Joined: Dec. 2007 Posted: Feb. 23 2010, 12:03 "Personaly I think Jim/Scatterplot here has got it absolutely spot on for me.Copyright in all shapes and forms, is there for good reason,and as such the law has to be upheld.Yeah I`ve downloaded stuff from torrents/rapidshare etc,simply because I can.At the same time though I know it`s wrong,I know it`s against the law really."     Don't be so hard on yourself Dirk. There is no getting around new technology, mainly the ability to download movies/music. Just to watch "Star Trek 2009" on your PC is no sin("And I can play the game of life to win"-BYRDS tie-in). Watching a flick on your PC is not going to deprive James Cameron his millions.......Life goes on as long as the product is good enough to overwhelm the loss of profit from downloads. My 2 euros worth. -------------- We raise our voices in the night Crying to heaven And will our voices be heard Or will they break Like the wind Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net