 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Not logged in - | |
| Moderated by: Richard Hefner | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| The Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet - General - General - ezFolk Forums | |||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||
|
Richard Hefner Administrator 
|
NMPA's Internet Anti-Piracy Task Force has prepared a paper, The Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet, to illustrate how copyright protection in the computer-driven Age of Information is the engine of free expression, and why it is especially important that the Internet serve as a nurturer—and not as a destroyer—of the incentive to create that drives the marketplace of ideas. The Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that copyright protection --far from being inconsistent with the rights of free speech and freedom of information-- is the very engine of free expression. This principle is not new. Over two hundred years ago, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other champions of American democracy, considered copyright protection and the ownership of intellectual property so essential and complimentary to freedom of speech that they included a mandate for it in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The goal of this paper, prepared by the National Music Publishers' Association's Internet Anti-Piracy Task Force, is to illustrate how copyright protection in the computer-driven Age of Information is even more so the engine of free expression than it was in the days of the Colonial printing press, and why it is especially important that the Internet serve as a nurturer --and not as a destroyer-- of the incentive to create that drives the marketplace of ideas. How Copyright Serves the Public By ensuring that creators are fairly compensated for the use of their works, strong copyright laws encourage the broadest possible participation of citizens in the creative process. While we do not subscribe to Dr. Johnson's claim that "no man but a blockhead writes for free," it is certainly true that compensation for the use of copyrighted works enables those whose works the public deems of value to continue creating, while encouraging newcomers with something to say to join in. The national and global culture is enormously enriched by such a system, which rewards the most popular and talented creators and allows them to devote themselves full-time to their art. Great works engender increased public discussion, and the creation of new art, to the betterment of all. Creators who are so inclined are always free to distribute their own works free of charge, but that is a choice to be made by the creator for his or her own original works of authorship. (This notion is the same as that underlying all property rights: with ownership comes the right to control use). By the same token, without adequate copyright protections and enforcement, the fruits of human creativity are severely diminished. Uncompensated creators are not afforded either the time, the resources, or other incentives to create. After a while, the well of great new works runs dry. The breakdown of the copyright system in post-Soviet Russia, a nation with a rich history of creative accomplishment, can teach us all a lesson. Just as the strictures of totalitarianism were being removed from the lives of Russian creators, the traditions of copyright protection and enforcement were abandoned. The result has been the utter dissipation of Russia's creative community. Some creators have fled to the West. Others have been forced to abandon their craft. Either way, the output of creative works has nearly ceased, a sad result for a great culture. The Myth of Free Information At no time in history has it been more important for the public to recognize the value of copyright protection than in the Information Age. The threat of piracy --the use of someone else's creative work without permission or compensation-- has grown with the Internet. The Net has given every person on earth with access to a computer and a modem the ability to engage in the unauthorized, mass distribution of any type of creative work. Since the power of the Internet can, with the mere push of a button, easily destroy the global monetary value of a work to its author, copyright protections may be even more important in the virtual world than in the physical one. The creators and copyright owners of American music want the public to understand that violating the copyright laws by posting, downloading or sending protected works over the Internet or other computer networks without authorization of the copyright owner, is unfair, unlawful, and ultimately counter to the interests of honest Internet citizens. There are some Internet users, however, who still don't see it that way. These dissenters cry that "information wants to be free." If we define "information" to mean facts and ideas, it is impossible to disagree. The U.S. Copyright Act itself explicitly recognizes that facts and ideas are not protectable, and may be distributed freely by and among members of the public. It is the expression of those facts and ideas that is protectable, so as to encourage creativity. Music and other works that entertain us constitute expression and are subject to copyright protection as a property right. Just as the law protects us against someone driving away with our car without permission, it also enables a songwriter or a music copyright owner to prevent someone from taking his or her work without permission and selling it or distributing it to vast numbers of people on the Internet. For creators, this is not only a matter of fairness, but of economic survival. The Rationalization of Theft Several popular music websites consist largely of a network of users who --without authorization-- make and distribute to one another derivative works (i.e. arrangements) and full length copies of other people's copyrighted musical compositions. These unauthorized copies take the form of both sheet music (a category that may also include lyrics and tablature in addition to traditional notation) and audio renditions. Their distribution is in clear violation of the exclusive rights granted to creators and copyright owners under the U.S. Copyright Act and other national laws to make, arrange and distribute works. In an attempt to justify their activities, many unauthorized music users have rationalized their actions as hurting only those stars "who are already rich." Economically successful music creators and companies are not the principal victims of cyber-theft, however. The music community consists mainly of thousands of small, struggling publishers and little-known songwriters, and it is their ability to survive that is most strongly and adversely affected by copyright infringement, whether on-line or otherwise. Some argue that such theft actually serves the interests of its victims. "You sell more records and get more exposure as a result of our activities," is a familiar claim. This same argument has been made for decades by other music users who would also prefer not to pay for what they can easily take. Broadcasters frequently claim that they should get free use of music because the exposure they provide helps to sell records. Users ranging from film and television producers to restaurant and club owners have made similar assertions. Record manufacturers have argued for free use, claiming that without the widespread availability of recordings, songs would never get airplay. Producers of fake book (sheet music pirates) have made all of the above claims. With all of these "friends" of the music community helping to boost the popularity of songs through their unauthorized uses, creators would starve without proper protection and enforcement through the copyright laws. Many infringing website administrators argue that they are different because no one "profits" from their allegedly "non-commercial" uses. This is patently untrue. Thousands of users derive substantial economic benefits by getting reams of sheet music or hours of audio for free, and in the process, displacing millions of dollars in sales and royalties which would have gone to support the creators and copyright owners of the works utilized. Such infringing websites are essentially part of a massive barter network in which goods that do not belong to the users are traded back and forth to the enormous detriment of the true owners. This is not an activity that courts are likely to determine constitutes "fair use." Recognizing the danger posed by infringing websites, and even "barter sites" Congress recently enacted legislation to criminalize the activities of net pirates who upload protected works for the purpose of making them available to a mass audience without authorization, irrespective of whether such infringement is carried out for personal financial gain. Operators of infringing music sites should be aware that their activities could fall within the scope of this criminal law, known as the No Electronic Theft Act. The Licensing Solution The solution to the problem of keeping music websites available to enthusiasts is to make them licensed sites. That means persons responsible for the sites and the uses made on the sites must apply to the copyright owner of the music for permission to upload it onto their network by such owner prior to each upload. If permission is denied, the prospective uploader must forego the use. If conditions for the payment of royalties and other use limitations are agreed upon, the administrators must see that such licenses are enforced. Seeking permission to use music is not difficult, burdensome or costly. NMPA will be pleased to help internet music users to contact the copyright owners in order to establish a dialog that may lead to licensed uses. The currently infringing sites can eventually develop into sites which serve the interests of all Americans --including those who need to earn a living from their creative works now and those who hope to do so in the future-- but only with the cooperation of those sites' users.
____________________ Richard Hefner Webmaster, ezFolk.com MP3 Page: http://www.ezfolk.com/audio/richardhefner Running Blog: http://old-runner.com |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
HowlinHobbit Approved 
|
The problem with this little piece of propaganda is that it takes this "moral high road" approach while totally ignoring the original term and intent of the copyright protection in the Constitution. The Constitution's writers (and other writings by them) point out that copyright should be for a limited period of time (14 years in the Constitution itself) so that the originator has a fair crack at making a profit off his/her work but then is forced to create new work because the old stuff has gone into the public domain. With mega-corporations (yeah Walt Disney, I'm looking at you) paying off congresscritters (and at you, dead Salvatore Bono -- the trees waited way too long) to extend these terms every time something they value approaches the end of its copyright period, we've come to a point where the corps think that the great-great-grandchildren of the original creator should be compensated for their forebear's works. This is nonsense. (Actually I have a stronger word for that but I'll refrain.) Worse yet, corporations now hold copyrights and collect money for them without the original creator or their descendants seeing a dime of it. The whole premise that these extended copyright protections foster new works is total crap. They foster nothing but corporate greed and lawyer fees. I haven't responded to the poll because your two choices don't cover all the facts of the matter. It isn't a case of "anything goes" vs. "protecting the creator's rights", no matter how carefully worded the puff piece is. Howlin' Hobbit Got Uke? Howlin' Hobbit on MySpace Snake Suspenderz Hot Jass, Hokum and Novelty Music... with a bite! Last edited on Wed Aug 16th, 2006 07:55 pm by HowlinHobbit ____________________ Howlin' Hobbit Got Uke? MySpace ezFolk UkeLand |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
UkeForever Approved 
|
The poll is definitely missing that third option. It presents a false dilemma. Hey Hobbit, is is OK if I use your response to this position statement in an English class? Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 09:38 pm by UkeForever ____________________ Don't let the door hit 'ya where the good Lord split 'ya. John Rockwell's Crazy Songs 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Richard Hefner Administrator
|
Okay... I've added a third option and will be glad to add more if there's something else I didn't think of. I'm with everybody else on thinking the laws go too far, but all I can do is comply with whatever the law says I have to do. I sure can't afford to fight it (and I'm too lazy even if I could afford it). 
____________________ Richard Hefner Webmaster, ezFolk.com MP3 Page: http://www.ezfolk.com/audio/richardhefner Running Blog: http://old-runner.com |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
banjo brad Super Moderator 
|
Richard- I'm glad you added the third option, I think that is what most of us agree with. Personally, I feel that the original artist and his publisher/agent/label/whatever should be granted the rights to his work, the artist for his life, the others for a lesser time, maybe the 14 years as granted in the original constitution. Good read, thanks. 
____________________ ezFolk Help Brad Prickly Pear Music Banjo Brad's ezFolk page TOTMC |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Charlie Approved 
|
Do our votes mean anything on this or are we doing this for any organization that can help. I hope so, maybe other groups can join in on this some how Charlie
____________________ Yesterdays Tomorrow is Today http://www.ezfolk.com/audio/charlesculbertson |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
banjo brad Super Moderator
|
Charlie- I think it is just to get a read on how the members think on the copyright issue. Maybe something can come of it, but I'm not aware of any survey underway by legislators. Maybe we all shoulc write our congressmen/women, and the hopefuls and try to get their views on this. It is an election year, after all. Now, who are my legislators?  Incidently, here is a link to an article on how the copyright laws work. I haven't had a chance to slog through it all yet, but it does look to be well thought out and unbiased. It was written by a musician. http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/royalty-politics.html Last edited on Wed Aug 16th, 2006 04:29 am by banjo brad ____________________ ezFolk Help Brad Prickly Pear Music Banjo Brad's ezFolk page TOTMC |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Charlie Approved
|
Thanks Brad for the additional information, I just had not thought to much about all this untill I joined here on ezfolk and relized what a problem this is for all of us and how outdated the law was. The group that I play with at the nursing homes ever week and we play a lot of music that is under copy write and any one of us are all elderly and did not worry because we have always played and sang these songs, So I begain to worry and went to our preacher that is a banjo player with a large national group of players and he got us a license to perform the music at these places now thru our church. We need to do as you were saying, contact our legislators and start bitiching about it as if they care unless they are musicans. Thanks Brad Charlie
____________________ Yesterdays Tomorrow is Today http://www.ezfolk.com/audio/charlesculbertson |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
ejsant Approved 
|
Greetings All, The trouble with any law in our society today is that the intent is disregarded in the interest of arguing the meaning of the words used to bring about a favorable selfish result and/or the furtherance of one’s agenda. I’m not sure what a “reasonable” period of time would be before a work passes into the public domain. I would think that with the progress of communication methods since the writing of the Constitution it may be argued that shortening the length of time from the original 14 years (I’m relying on previous comments as I don’t know the exact wording of this provision in the Constitution) would be more appropriate. To my way of thinking anything I write and/or create has come about from an inspiration that truth be told I had or have no control over. Should I then claim sole ownership of it? I’m not sure. This somewhat seems the same as my claiming sole ownership of the creation of a tree, or a mountain. Again I had no control over these coming about either. Now I do realize that some day I may very well create something that indeed has great commercial appeal and I suppose if someone or some corporation were to profit greatly from it I would want my fair share, whatever that might be, but if any average Joe or Josephine simply wanted to perform any of my original works and they were just as I, simply surviving, they are welcome to do so. To me it’s really about spreading the message and somehow making a difference in someone’s life, albeit for just a moment. I just don’t put that much emphasis on money. This is not to say that I think others that may are wrong or less than I. Hell I don’t even know if I am right. All I know is that I am happy, broke for sure, but happier than I was when once I had money. Just my prospective and certainly not meant or offered as being judgmental of those different than mine. Peace, Ed
____________________ Peace, a brilliant aspiration!!! Traditional and Contemporary Irish Music P.O. Box 5086 Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 (201) 424-6141 http://www.EdSaultz.com http://www.ezfolk.com/audio/Ed_Saultz |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
HowlinHobbit Approved
|
UkeForever wrote: Hey Hobbit, is is OK if I use your response to this position statement in an English class? Sure, as long as you use my edited version (I meant to say "the corps think" not "the corps thing"... sheesh!). So, am I to be held up as a shining example or a horrible warning?  Richard -- good third choice. And apparently I'm not the only one to think so. HH
____________________ Howlin' Hobbit Got Uke? MySpace ezFolk UkeLand |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
HowlinHobbit Approved
|
banjo brad wrote: Personally, I feel that the original artist and his publisher/agent/label/whatever should be granted the rights to his work, the artist for his life, the others for a lesser time, maybe the 14 years as granted in the original constitution. Granting the artist rights for his/her life goes against the intent of the Constitution. As I stated before, the intent was to give the original creator a reasonable chance to profit from his/her works and then force them to do something new if they still wanted the lucre. After some reflection, I'm not against extending the length of the period beyond 14 years but this is how I'd do it. x = average lifespan in the 18th century. y = current average lifespan z = percentage difference between x and y. The term would now be 14 years plus z (rounded up to the nearest year). Richard -- no matter what I feel about the current copyright laws I would never suggest that you risk losing your valuable resource and all the time and love you've put into it just to make some sort of point. While I regret that I can't post, say, my bitchin' version of "Moonglow" here because of the laws, I have never felt that you were being unreasonable about the subject. When the revolution come, lawyers gonna be first up against the wall. HH
____________________ Howlin' Hobbit Got Uke? MySpace ezFolk UkeLand |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Richard Hefner Administrator
|
Hey, that's good... looks like 10 people agree, with no dissenters yet, that the laws need to be changed. In looking at some of the copyright stuff yesterday I noticed the laws in Europe are somewhat different and they actually have stuff still coming into public domain every year. That would be a nice change in the laws in the U.S. and I presume that's the way it used to be. Sadly, I think laws of this sort won't be changed by those of us who think they should be changed. I think this kind of thing is pretty much paid for by the lobbyists representing the people who have the money (such as Disney) and that's why the laws are now as they are. There's little incentive for anybody with money to try to change the copyright laws in favor of more material being public domain. Us poor folks who can't pay anybody off are left to deal with it. That's my thinking anyway, and as always, I could be wrong. 
____________________ Richard Hefner Webmaster, ezFolk.com MP3 Page: http://www.ezfolk.com/audio/richardhefner Running Blog: http://old-runner.com |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
garyblanchard Approved 
|
Make me #11. I have written some songs myself and would love to make some money off of them. I think, however, that I shouldn't have a lifetime to profit, nor do I think that my son should profit off them as well (though he might disagree on that  ).The current law goes way too far in granting protection. I'd settle for 14 years at least, maybe up to 25 years. Too bad we don't have the clout. 
____________________ http://www.GBandF.com |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
banjo brad Super Moderator
|
Gary said: " Too bad we don't have the clout. " Hey, if the freedom riders could do it in the 60's, what's to say we couldn't do it now? What was the saying - "Power to the People?" (This is a folk site, after all) 
____________________ ezFolk Help Brad Prickly Pear Music Banjo Brad's ezFolk page TOTMC |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
AmyDK Approved
|
Here's an article appearing in today's New York Times about the Guitar Tab sites. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/technology/21ecom.html?ex=1156824000&en=60b248d5df0a1006&ei=5070&emc=eta1 Amy
____________________ Amy's ezFolk page Amy on MySpace My Website |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Richard Hefner Administrator
|
Thanks for the link Amy! Wow! Interesting reading, and even more interesting if you follow some of the links, especially the one to ultimate-guitar.com... http://www.ultimate-guitar.com It'll be interesting to see how that one works out. They're offering all of the tabs that everybody else is deleting from their websites and completely thumbing their nose at the U.S. copyright laws because they're based in Russia. Right in the middle of the front page there's a big sign, complete with hammer & sickle, saying "When you download tabs from UG, you're downloading COMMUNISM," with COMMUNISM in big letters (I'm including the description in case it changes). The link there leads to their response to the U.S. copyright enforcers and how they're not under the U.S. laws but Russian laws... http://ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/ultimate-guitarcom_the_last_stand.html As I write this there are about 1300 responses to this message in two days. I read a few and they were all in support of UG although it says "29 messages were deleted" so I guess there have been a few dissenters. I'm amazed that UG would take such a bold stand, getting in the face of the MPA like that, and equally amazed at all of the U.S. citizens jumping on the Communism bandwagon. I'm no big flag waver, but something seems a little screwy there. It's going to be interesting to see what happens to UG in particular. They might get by with it, so people will have somewhere to get the tabs they want, but the MPA has a lot of money and might take them up on this challenge, and I'm also wondering about the backlash from the strong Communist stand they seem to be taking. 
____________________ Richard Hefner Webmaster, ezFolk.com MP3 Page: http://www.ezfolk.com/audio/richardhefner Running Blog: http://old-runner.com |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
banjo brad Super Moderator
|
Amy beat me to it - I just found the link on anorter site. The article does seggest that there could be action against foreign sites providing tabs to the US. My guess would be that possibly the ISP would be blocked from US users. Somewhere in all the stuff I have browsed through on the subject I seem to recall that there is precident - or that it could be taken through the courts. Sort of like the labels on VCR's and DVD's about Interpol going after piraters and such. I wonder if the "Communism" thing on the page is a Hack. I could be wrong.  Edit: Interesting, I just tried both of the links Richard supplied and both come back with "site not found" messages. Quick, huh? Last edited on Mon Aug 21st, 2006 10:05 pm by banjo brad ____________________ ezFolk Help Brad Prickly Pear Music Banjo Brad's ezFolk page TOTMC |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||
