Music
This is a controversial issue and may get me into trouble but I intend to express my views on intellectual property and the recording industry.
There are two issues at stake here: the nature of "Intellectual Property" and the nature of the music and recording industry.
The notion of intellectual property arises when people decide that they are entitled to ownership of their ideas. I came up with the idea of democracy so I own the rights to democracy. I would consider that I am entitled to the product of my labor and that the product of my intellectual labor is democracy. This would seem natural but is in fact ridiculous. What if someone else, completely independent of myself, were to conjure up democracy? Would they too hold the rights to democracy? Obviously coming up with an idea does not give someone the rights to it. Inventing democracy does not give me the right to charge a user fee to societies that implement it. The reason is that the potential for it already existed. The potential for it already existed and I merely discovered it. This is different than the discovery of say, land. Only one person at a time can use a said piece of land. But any number of people can possess the same concept.
So one can't own ideas.
But it would seem that somehow, one was still entitled to the ideas that one came up with. If this is not expressed through ownership, how should it be expressed, or rather, where is the source of this entitlement? I believe the answer lies in honesty. It would be dishonest to claim to have invented something when in fact you barrowed the idea from another. So, a thinker's entitlement to his thoughts is a matter of honesty, not ownership.
Now how does this relate to the music industry? Well here’s how.
According to US copyright laws, any creative work is copyrighted as soon as it set down in tangible form. As soon as you finish a drawing or recording a piece of music it is copyrighted. You have absolute rights over it. You can copy your work, sell it, destroy it, display it, whatever. What generally happened with musical recordings was that they were sold to record companies who's function was to copy them and distribute the copies among the public. They made money for copying material. That was their function. In recent years the ability to copy music and distribute it has become much easier. So much easier that it is possible for virtually any individual to copy and distribute music. The recording industry's key function has been made obsolete. The recording industry is attempting to address its obsolescence with copyright laws.
The notion of copyright began with the introduction of the printing press into England in the 17th century. In attempt to control the circulation of propaganda Parliament gave monopoly of reproduction to certain printing companies. This monopoly of reproduction was called copyright. This same copyright was later applied to the protection of an artists work. So that someone could not just reproduce something and place his name on it. Since then, copyright has grown to be the main tool for the control of the trafficking of thoughts and intellectual art. The recording industry uses copyright laws to maintain a monopoly on the distribution of musical and generic sound tracks.
This seems wrong to me. You can't own ideas and songs are ideas. Each performance is a separate work of art and each copy of a performance is a separate performance. Copyright, as a protection of an artists authorship is a good thing, but the recording industry does not author music. Instead it pays for the rights to previously written songs, records them and then monopolizes for profit. Very little of the proceeds ever reaches the original artist. Usually, only the absolute most popular of artists make much money through recording. Most musicians make money through individual performances and through merchandising. Recording acts more as a form of advertisement. The recording industry's monopoly hinders this advertisement and thus hinders artists.
Thus I believe that the recording industry's monopoly on music is a hindrance to society and the art it pretends to protect and in the future congress should move to revise it.
There are two issues at stake here: the nature of "Intellectual Property" and the nature of the music and recording industry.
The notion of intellectual property arises when people decide that they are entitled to ownership of their ideas. I came up with the idea of democracy so I own the rights to democracy. I would consider that I am entitled to the product of my labor and that the product of my intellectual labor is democracy. This would seem natural but is in fact ridiculous. What if someone else, completely independent of myself, were to conjure up democracy? Would they too hold the rights to democracy? Obviously coming up with an idea does not give someone the rights to it. Inventing democracy does not give me the right to charge a user fee to societies that implement it. The reason is that the potential for it already existed. The potential for it already existed and I merely discovered it. This is different than the discovery of say, land. Only one person at a time can use a said piece of land. But any number of people can possess the same concept.
So one can't own ideas.
But it would seem that somehow, one was still entitled to the ideas that one came up with. If this is not expressed through ownership, how should it be expressed, or rather, where is the source of this entitlement? I believe the answer lies in honesty. It would be dishonest to claim to have invented something when in fact you barrowed the idea from another. So, a thinker's entitlement to his thoughts is a matter of honesty, not ownership.
Now how does this relate to the music industry? Well here’s how.
According to US copyright laws, any creative work is copyrighted as soon as it set down in tangible form. As soon as you finish a drawing or recording a piece of music it is copyrighted. You have absolute rights over it. You can copy your work, sell it, destroy it, display it, whatever. What generally happened with musical recordings was that they were sold to record companies who's function was to copy them and distribute the copies among the public. They made money for copying material. That was their function. In recent years the ability to copy music and distribute it has become much easier. So much easier that it is possible for virtually any individual to copy and distribute music. The recording industry's key function has been made obsolete. The recording industry is attempting to address its obsolescence with copyright laws.
The notion of copyright began with the introduction of the printing press into England in the 17th century. In attempt to control the circulation of propaganda Parliament gave monopoly of reproduction to certain printing companies. This monopoly of reproduction was called copyright. This same copyright was later applied to the protection of an artists work. So that someone could not just reproduce something and place his name on it. Since then, copyright has grown to be the main tool for the control of the trafficking of thoughts and intellectual art. The recording industry uses copyright laws to maintain a monopoly on the distribution of musical and generic sound tracks.
This seems wrong to me. You can't own ideas and songs are ideas. Each performance is a separate work of art and each copy of a performance is a separate performance. Copyright, as a protection of an artists authorship is a good thing, but the recording industry does not author music. Instead it pays for the rights to previously written songs, records them and then monopolizes for profit. Very little of the proceeds ever reaches the original artist. Usually, only the absolute most popular of artists make much money through recording. Most musicians make money through individual performances and through merchandising. Recording acts more as a form of advertisement. The recording industry's monopoly hinders this advertisement and thus hinders artists.
Thus I believe that the recording industry's monopoly on music is a hindrance to society and the art it pretends to protect and in the future congress should move to revise it.
posted by Andrew Stine at 3:47 PM
2 comments
