In this video (it’s around minute 35), Kerstin Jorna, Director of Intellectual Property Directorate of the European Commission brings an interesting example, and in my opinion she had the roles completely backwards.
She referred to individual creators works as
I’m selling bananas, you’re selling apple and he’s selling oranges. But you (pointing towards the audience) just want your fruit salad without buying from each and every one of us.
This way of thinking in the context of music is plain wrong. Music is not a commodity no matter how much music is out there. You can substitute an apple from vendor ABC with an apple from vendor XYZ, but you can’t substitute The Beatles “Revolution” with Prince’s “Kiss”. And thinking about it more closely it shows the ignorance that creators have to face today.
But to stay with her example: what exactly is the fruit salad in Ms. Jornas example?
Is it a remix?
Is it using the work in a different context (film, advertisement)?
Is it a brass band concert playing arrangements of the songs?
Is it the right to broadcast the work?
Is it the right to press vinyl of it?
Is it the right to distribute the work on a website?
Or is it the right to carry the work with you on a device such as an mp3 player?
And here lies the misconception of the example of Ms. Jorna, because she’s confusing individual uses (carry the work on mp3 player, storing it on a computer etc.) with commercial uses (in some form of a distributor).
I ask you: you’re a laywer. Your mind should be sharp enough to make these distinctions especially since you’re supposed to watch over our rights. I’m deeply disappointed.
UPDATE: It seems that this all of this is a bit weird, so I want to just say that I’m very doubtful about this particular case. However, I still thing a personalized creator right is a great thing as opposed to the american copyright system.
This is what copyright and individual creators rights are about: you get to have justice on your side against the sleaze-balls that are better at exploiting than creating.
So if I’m understanding the netizens and their user-rights meme correctly, then the new business model is to become a curator on YouTube and take in all the profits from that with no regard to the creators of the content of the videos.
Check this guy out for example: he has 2.4 Millionen views on his channel. That does translate into actual money. Do you think any money goes to the composers who wrote those soundtracks? To the film studios who financed the recordings? No. To the musicians? No. And what’s worse: usually a production company takes money that they make on one project and put it into a new project, paying music copyists (you know the people who prepare the sheet music), editors, actors, musicians, technicians etc. It keeps a virtuous cycle alive. But if you disrupt this mechanism and think that disruption for the sake of disruption is always a good thing, then you’re not thinking about all the people employed in these industries and that just makes no sense. I thought all this historical progress was to empower individuals and create a better world for everyone? Oh right, individual curators but not creators.
And another thought: do you think a single individual score composer will ever reach those numbers of plays? It’s delusional to think that. It’s the exception not the rule. Or does this guy include the indie composers in his score playlists as a way to promote up and coming talent? No, he’s banking on the historical greats for his personal benefit of both money and fame.
Even though I also understand the financial challenges with online streaming.
I think what has to come back at some point is the willingness of the consumer to actually pay more for music than they did the past 13 years. There’s just no way around it, we need more money in the system and then we need a system to distribute the money to the correct recipient according to the usage of the music.
Eines der gängigen Argumente für ein neues Urheberrecht (wie auch immer das dann ausgestaltet werden soll, mit Details halten sich nämlich alle dann diskret zurück!) ist, dass man den großen Organisationen und Verwertern die Macht nehmen muss.
Fakt ist aber, dass wenn das Urheberrecht “modernisisert” (bedeutet dann immer: geschwächt) werden soll, werden nicht die Verwerter entmachtet, sondern der Urheber selbst. Er hat nämlich dann noch weniger Handhabe im Umgang mit seinen Rechten und wie er diese an Verwerter lizensieren kann und mit welchen Mitteln er diese Lizenzabkommen dann durchsetzen kann. Auch gibt es Gesetze über angemessene Vergützung, die den Urheber davor schützen, dass große Unternehmen ihre Marktmacht ausspielen und den Urheber unter Druck setzen.
Das alles gilt aber natürlich nur hier in Deutschland. Deutschland bietet sozusagen einen sehr guten Schutz des Urhebers, während sich Kreative in den USA nach solchem Schutz die Finger lecken. Nicht allerdings Unternehmen, die gerne verwerten wollen aber mit dem Urheber als Individuum möglichst gar nicht sprechen möchten. Für die sind die Forderungen der Digitalen Copyleft Bewegung ein Segen, wie er besser gar nicht sein könnte. Dieser Umstand wird aber von den meisten Menschen übersehen.
Sie sehen nicht den einzelnen Urheber, dessen Schaffen nämlich sehr wohl den Schutz geniessen sollte, sondern immer nur die böse Verwerterkrake.
Ein schwaches Urheberrecht wird alles einfacher machen für die Verwerter und auch hier vor allem für die neuen Verwerter aber die Existenz der Individuen abwürgen. Die Medienindustrie hat die Individuen schlecht beteiligt aber die neuen Unternehmen beteiligen gar nicht (Google, YouTube, Facebook, reddit, etc…)
In meinem Berufsleben erlebe ich täglich genau dieses Problem: ich stehe als einzelner Rechteverkäufer großen Organisationen gegenüber, die mich unter Druck setzen mit ihrer Marktmacht. In diesem Dreieck (Urheber – Verwerter – Konsument) brauche ich den Schutz der Allgemeinheit und das deutsche Recht gibt mir diesen Schutz. Wenn der aber wegfällt, habe ich gar keine Verhandlungsposition mehr.
But I have been taken advantage of by people enough times that I want to know that I have the option of protecting my rights against large corporations and exploitative dishonest people.
If you weaken individual protection and you’ll strengthen the large organisations.
We have a completely different law in Germany. It is not even called copyright it is called creatorright. It gives me power to demand things from TV stations and everything else.
The weak American copyright system is being used as an argument to make things worse than they are everywhere else.
I don’t agree with the big media companies, but I do firmly believe that we as individual creators desperately need protection and a way to enforce our rights.
Just 6 days ago someone used my music in a way that was not agreed upon. All they had to do was include my name in the credits. No money, no restriction whatsoever except that one and they didn’t even do that. These kinds of specious people need to vanish from the culture industry and that is why we need a strong creator right.
You’ve probably come across this video of Joshua Bell busking in the Washington subway during rush hour.
To me, this video and article shows several things: first of all, people just don’t recognize greatness even if it is in front of them in the size of a mountain. But second, and this I find even more important, here is a chance to enjoy something for free, no strings attached at a level of performance that is unrivaled in the world. And yet, no one stops to listen.
Here’s my thought: what about all those people claiming that every artist should put out his/her work for free as it helps to get exposure and exposure and reaching people is what matters? It seems to me that if something is free, won’t even stop to take a closer look. So free seems to equate “not interesting enough to check out”.
Now on the other hand, if there is something with a value attached to it, suddenly the argument is: no, no, no, no, I can’t possibly be expected to pay for something. I’ll just grab it from my friend and be done with it. Does anyone else see the terribly destructive hypocrisy in this?
So please, all you people out there who claim to wanting to help creators by forcing them to just give away their work for free: think again. And for yourself this time without the “screaming free industry” (I’m looking at you, Lawrence Lessig) yelling in your ear about how modern that attitude supposedly is.
Tonight I had the dream about something, that would solve the problems of both the content industry and the free speech movement.
It would add so much entertainment value to the internet if people instead of posting the actual songs/pictures/films/books/comics that they like would just sing the the songs, draw the pictures themselves, reenact the films or write a summary of the book themselves and then link back to the creators website (or some store like Amazon or iTunes, earning referral money in the process btw.) to get to the full version.
So let me demonstrate:
If I thought that it would be clever to reference the Sex Pistols “God Save The Queen” (from memory which makes it even more fun, because it’s probably way off) in the context of a bee hive I could be posting it like this:
Citizens of the world, it is time to save the Queen Bee, so let’s get up and sing our world anthem “God Save The Queen”
I wish that the internet community would start separating the privacy concerns and free speech concerns from the content creators, big or small, and instead focus on what is actually important: political censorship and freedom. Distributing someones content without that persons consent has nothing to do with free speech. Nothing.
Respecting of intellectual property is a social and civil contract that’s in the best interest of both the creator and consumer.
In which universe is free speech and websites where you can download unauthorized content the same thing?
People: your effort to protect free speech and civil rights are being hijacked by the free loading industry (the Googles, YouTubes and the indsutry that sells bandwidth!) and you don’t even realize it!