Author | Thread |
|
12/06/2008 08:18:11 PM · #26 |
This previously-posted discussion pertains here too:
Originally posted by KQED Forum Program: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy
Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig believes heavy-handed enforcement of intellectual property rights may quash creativity and innovation. He joins us to discuss his new book, "Remix: Making Art and Culture in the Hybrid Economy." |
|
|
|
12/06/2008 08:40:34 PM · #27 |
Joe has the resources to win, but that indie band will get squat. |
|
|
12/07/2008 10:14:19 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: This previously-posted discussion pertains here too:
Originally posted by KQED Forum Program: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy
Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig believes heavy-handed enforcement of intellectual property rights may quash creativity and innovation. He joins us to discuss his new book, "Remix: Making Art and Culture in the Hybrid Economy." | |
I'm generally a big fan of Lessig's ideas on the dangers of an overbearing copyright regime, although I think even Lessig would not defend just ripping off someone else's idea without at least giving them credit for it. His concerns have never been about abolishing copyrights, instead he has argued for years about how steeply the rights keep getting tilted towards creators and away from consumers.
First, the current length of copyright is just ridiculous. When congress first established copyright laws it gave copyright owners 15 years to have exclusive rights over their work and then it became public domain for anyone to use as they wished. It got extended a little at a time, and then came Mickey Mouse and every time Mickey was about to enter the public domain something magical happened, suddenly congress would be persuaded by lobbyists to extend copyright greatly. And now we're at the point where copyrights last for the entire life of the author plus an additional 75 years after his/her death!
Much of copyright law has gone from promoting "the progress of science and useful arts" to actually hurting them. Satriani should have 15-20 years during his lifetime when he can capitalize off of his creative work without having to fear that a better funded group will freely take his idea and make tons of money without him seeing a dime. The tradeoff in rights in copyright is that the public also has fair-use rights during the copyright term and after the copyright term the public domain is supposed to be enriched when works become publicly available for any use. Now the public has essentially lost it's end of the bargain because we will not see contemporary works become publicly available within our lifetime.
The argument made by artists for making copyright so unreasonably long was that sometimes works become more valuable with age and it is only fair to allow artists and their heirs to benefit from works even after the artist is dead. Well, that scenario happens, but it is the VERY rare exception to the rule that 99.99% (rhetorically) of works are forgotten within a few years of creation. While a very few benefit from the copyright extensions the rest of the public is cheated out of its end of the copyright bargain as works just never fall into the public domain anymore until they've long been forgotten.
The other issue that is often lead by Lessig is the problem that arises from the use of technology to enforce copyright law. Even back in the days of things like Digital Audio Tape the lawyers for record companies convinced congress that significant copyright infringement would take place with digital technology, so they passed laws that assumed we are all criminals. If you've bought any of that media then you also payed a penalty tax that assumes a certain amount of piracy will occur with it and the money goes to the recording industry for distribution to whoever is currently famous. In other words, young bands/labels across the country who were trying to get their original works recorded and recognized were paying defacto royalties to bands/labels who were already successful through the recording media they needed to use to become successful. That's FUBAR
Recording and Movie industry lobbyists have also managed to pass other anti-technology laws and have strong armed technology manufacturers in ways that I'm confident will be seen as draconian by future generations. They have successfully limited what digital copying abilities are available on "consumer" grade equipment and they have given themselves the right to police the Internet with powers like DMCA "takedown notices". I've seen these used to squelch free speech on YouTube where people are in contentious debates. Then one side decides he doesn't like the way the other portrayed him, claims a copyright infringement and gives YouTube a notice to take down the allegedly offending content. After the material has been taken down the other person can make a case with YouTube to have their material put back up and have the account reinstated. The trouble here, however, isn't YouTube and it's only partly the wrongful accusation. The big trouble is that laws like the DMCA have legislated that we are all criminals until proven innocent with regard to copyright.
The physical world Satriani/Coldplay equivalent of this would be something like this: Satriani claims a copyright violation, so, if the DMCA was applied to stores, Satriani could send a take-down notice to record stores to have the offending Coldplay CDs taken off of the shelves (without the need for a court order) and the record stores would be legally compelled to do so. In the digital realm it is possible for Satriani to do exactly that to iTunes. He could have ordered iTunes to take down the Coldplay Viva La Vida tracks from their site and Apple would have been required under the DMCA to comply. I imagine that he didn't because much of the money from those sales is going to be his soon anyway. Why shoot down your own song if it's making money that should eventually come back to you.
Sorry to rant on so long. The General just brought up a topic that's very near and dear to my heart. I'm going to listen to that Lessig interview now since it must be good. |
|
|
12/16/2008 11:15:15 AM · #29 |
I am not sure if they would be able to use a youtube vid in court or not, but I find it a little ironic that youtube has removed alot of the videos that compared the songs for copyright issues with EMI records. There are still a few videos out there and I am sure people are still making them. I loaded both songs on to my Roland VS 2400 work station to mix them together. They are pretty close. I actually am concidering mastering a copy for my own use. sounds great together.
Originally posted by Tez: just watched the youtube video... that seems clear as day to me really.
I wonder if youtube videos are admissable evidence in court.
I didn't realise there are so many instances of Coldplay 'being influenced by' another song/artist. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 11:05:24 PM · #30 |
I think the big label will eat Joe for lunch. |
|
|
12/16/2008 11:14:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Jason_Cross: I think the big label will eat Joe for lunch. |
Why? Joe has a good case. It would take a fairly bad IP attorney to botch this for him and I think he has the resources to afford a talented lawyer. |
|
|
12/16/2008 11:23:34 PM · #32 |
I just think that there is some shady business that goes down in the entertainment world. I am thinking that Joe might be found dead in an hotel room, or some plane might go down with him in it. Strange things happen when you mess with the big boys. |
|
|
12/18/2008 05:52:48 PM · #33 |
Lucky for Joe, He is one of the big boys.
Originally posted by Jason_Cross: I just think that there is some shady business that goes down in the entertainment world. I am thinking that Joe might be found dead in an hotel room, or some plane might go down with him in it. Strange things happen when you mess with the big boys. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 09:54:21 PM · #34 |
Coldplay could buy is mother. Joe is a entertainment midget. A respected one, but a midget just the same. Sorry I think the correct term is little person. |
|
|
12/18/2008 09:59:20 PM · #35 |
I hate Coldplay. I love Joe Satriani. Coldplay rips off Satriani? GUILTY! Fine the bastards or whatever you do to what sound to me like the worst of Michael Bolton married to the worst of that whingy Brit, whatzisname, the one who sings 'You ah boo'i'ful'. Boring and predictable. |
|
|
12/18/2008 10:03:39 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Tez: ....I wonder if youtube videos are admissable evidence in court. |
Actually, they are. The Guns & Gangs squad up here in Ottawa area recently hauled in a bunch of gangbangers, from local Bloods/Crips, cause they were stoopid enough to post homemade music videos on YouTube. The G&G squad just googled them and there they were. I heard from the head of G&G squad that it made great viewing, in court, in front of a judge and jury. Morons.
Message edited by author 2008-12-18 22:05:25. |
|
|
12/18/2008 10:27:46 PM · #37 |
Wonder who will still be around in 10 years time? Ill put my money on Joe.
Originally posted by Jason_Cross: Coldplay could buy is mother. Joe is a entertainment midget. A respected one, but a midget just the same. Sorry I think the correct term is little person. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 05:16:57 AM · #38 |
Its 4 years on, but I have to add to this thread. Viva La Vida was written in early 1993 by a band on the Gold Coast in Australia that included Iain Archers ( ex Snow Patrol ) cousin. Long story involving 30 artists/bands. As far as I know we wrote the whole career of Coldplay ( including the name )upto at least Paradise ( which was the last song they used that I'm aware of and participated in the writing of...even though we wrote that in January 1993, and Yellow was penned in March 1996, and was the last one I co-wrote).
I truly belief it is coincidence that Joe Satriani came up with a similar chord structure and rhythm.
Intellectual Property Law in interesting. From a writers point of view, I and my family and heirs should own what I've made forever. Its intrinsic, its moral. As far as I am aware Sony Bono brought in law in the US to extend it to 70 years, from what it was, which was about 25 years or so. But who says you can kick grandma, out of her house thats been in the family for generations....just because theres a law that it reverts to the public purse after 70 years or 100 years or even 500 years.
To protect everyone equally, Copyright Infringement should be a Federal crime that is legislated and enforced, everywhere in the world.
Me and my fellow co-writers on the Coldplay gig which also included Snow Patrol and some Radiohead, and many others, have not been paid because the middle-man, our bass player, Brett Layton, cousin of Iain Archer, is also cousin of Carl Williams ( the recently dead head of a notorious organised crime family in Australia ). Thats why its taken so long to get word out. |
|
|
02/29/2012 05:57:33 AM · #39 |
I had an interesting thought to do with IP law. In Australia recently in the North a cave was discovered containing Aboriginal Rock Art dating back more than 40,000 years. The local tribes didn't know about it, it had become lost to them. Now under Native Title legislation Aboriginals have to show a continuous connection with their sacred sites and lands. So what happened to the Rock Caves ? Of course the local tribes were brought in, and found to be similar to others in the area, and of course it will be a scared site, and the descendents of those original peoples that made that art will probably benefit from it for more than another 40,000 years.
Would I, and my heirs, have a case of discrimination if being a writer and maker of works of art, we weren't extended the same protection and rights in law ?
As far as public domain is concerned. Anyone can listen to my works on radio, TV adds, shopping centres, their own phone if they want.....but I'm going to get paid something for it, and I should.
The biggest problem concerning Copyright at the moment is the internet and You Tube and sites like it.
From a writers point of view, my opinion is that there should be advertising on the site and artists paid, just like for radio or TV...public broadcast. Of course this makes product placement in videos, advertising at gigs, and even clothing sponsorship deals more lucrative.
If theres covers done, which there are many out there, there should be some agreed to standard, for example 50/50 with the original artists....maybe the original artists should keep the right to choose who can cover their works. Maybe they've made so much from it, they don't care, and would rather give the money to charity. All these options have merit. Maybe when uploading, You Tube have to run them through a set of scenarios, of which a course of action has been chosen by the original artists.....and cover artists have to agree to it, or they don't get uploaded. |
|
|
02/29/2012 08:02:32 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by snaffles: I hate Coldplay.
|
i thought i as the only one. Everytime i hear one their winy songs i want to blow my brains out. I just dont get the appeal.
there are a bunch of bands really dislike, U2 for instance, but i get the appeal, but not coldplay, i literally get angry if a song someone the radio, i have no idea why, i have a severe bitter distaste for their music. |
|
|
02/29/2012 08:39:25 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by mike_311: Originally posted by snaffles: I hate Coldplay.
|
i thought i as the only one. Everytime i hear one their winy songs i want to blow my brains out. I just dont get the appeal.
there are a bunch of bands really dislike, U2 for instance, but i get the appeal, but not coldplay, i literally get angry if a song someone the radio, i have no idea why, i have a severe bitter distaste for their music. |
I always thought Coldplay took a big influence from U2, so that might explain your dislike.
Some obscure non-radio play Satriani song? That is where Coldplay is looking for ideas? outrageous.
Now- if it was something in the collective consciousness- much like when Ray Parker Jr. needed to come up with a theme for
Ghostbusters and it just magically appeared to him the night before... Oh no, wait, it was the same song as
"I want a new drug" by Huey Lewis that was on the Radio for 3 months solid prior to Ray's "lucky inspiration"
BTW, Huey Lewis and the News prevailed, at least settlement-wise, but how would the case have gone if the song was
an unreleased obscure b-side instrumental from Leo Sayer?
There is actually a song out right now, I think it is "David Guetta Ft. Usher - Without You" which sounds very similar to the melody, and words, to the chorus in U2's "with or without you." scary close.
There is also an Avril Lavigne song "Girlfriend" that is so close to an old song "I wanna be your boyfriend" -just google that one!
truth is, it is the big songs that are overplayed that are copied because its not intentional, at least at first. I have been in a band and writing hundreds of songs over the years, every once in a while you just have to say "no- thats too close" and chuck it- as soon as you realize. In fact, if I know I will be writing or in a situation to need ideas in a session, I try to avoid bands I like that sound similar, just so melodies don't seep in, at least in the days before. |
|
|
02/29/2012 09:54:04 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by blindjustice: Some obscure non-radio play Satriani song? That is where Coldplay is looking for ideas? outrageous.
|
I guess it depends on what's obscure to you. Many musicians don't look for their "inspiration" in the music that's popular, they listen to obscure music or older music that's good, just not terribly popular. Sometimes that can be a boost for their source of inspiration, sometimes not.
If coldplay, or any other band, looked exclusively to the music that is popular at the the time, people would quickly discover that their music is just a cut-rate imitation. By picking a more obscure source to parrot, they can be seen as "original"
As for Coldplay...if I want to listen to U2, I'll listen to U2 |
|
|
02/29/2012 10:50:19 AM · #43 |
Holy old thread revival by a member who joined just to revive it?
|
|
|
02/29/2012 10:58:07 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by MattO: Holy old thread revival by a member who joined just to revive it? |
... and, interestingly, someone who sounds like a party to the dispute... |
|
|
02/29/2012 11:01:32 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by MattO: Holy old thread revival by a member who joined just to revive it? |
+1
Guess anyone can join, even if they are a dead Pres. (I never voted for tricky Dick.) |
|
|
02/29/2012 11:25:50 AM · #46 |
people don't start new threads anymore, they just steal and rehash old ones... |
|
|
02/29/2012 12:22:36 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by blindjustice: people don't start new threads anymore, they just steal and rehash old ones... |
Haha. +1
|
|