Item — HN Reader

1a) My point was that without the creation (i.e. the artistic contribution, people getting together and jamming, me in my studio etc.) then the shared experiences wouldn't exist because nothing would have been created to be shared.

That was where it seemed your original comment was heading towards. That the creation didn't matter. I think we agree here but we seem to have missed each other's points.

1b) Hold on, are you arguing that copyright shouldn't exist because music/art has always existed in some form or another and therefore it doesn't deserve to be protected?

1c) Actually, copyright helps to boost creativity in some cases. See point (2b).

2a) UK copyright law actually started as a way of enforcing censorship. Mind you, this was hundreds of years ago under the Statute of Anne. These days, however, its job is to protect the rights and welfare of creators. Because our society places an inherent value on the work musicians do - whether they be pro or hobbyist.

2b) Copyright means that someone can't just go onto soundcloud, copy one of my tracks and call it their own. And a damn great thing that is. They'd be ripping off my work. Why would I bother creating anymore music to share with people if all that will happen is that is gets ripped off every time?

Yeah, I put the music out there for people to enjoy, but if someone else is going out and claim it as theirs and get some big concerts off the back of it, why would I bother? Humans are not altruistic beings. We are inherently selfish. Laws help keep us in line. That's the point of laws!

So, in that way, copyright actually helps boost creativity, whilst balancing the rights of the consumers and the rights holders.

3) You've taken the existing models used by collection societies and wrapped them up as if they've new. Also, its not clear if you're talking about just trying to use samples, or copyright as a whole. I'm going with the latter, as you mention remixes towards the end of your post, but if it's the former feel free to call me out and i can come back with other stuff then.

Let's go through these ideas in order... Using Average Joe, the dope smoking guitarist from The Average Band, as an example musician.

3a) mandatory fixed-price licensing (pick a price per human end user, but you cannot say no to remixes or alter the price for anyone);

PRS requires people who use music to have a license. The BBC pays a license fee. Pubs pay a license fee. Radio stations pay a license fee.

The price per end-user fluctuates because the number of end-listeners fluctuates over the course of a year. Also, the majority of revenue domains (Live especially) can't estimate how many end-listeners were actually listening to each piece of music. This is why blanket deals happen. The data just doesn't exist.

And before you start thinking "YouTube must surely be able to provide that data", their data was some of the most useless stuff we had to deal with back on the 2014 license. Seriously, it was atrocious.

All your solution does is put the onus of understanding the licenses on the rights holders, like Average Joe. Average Joe sometimes forgets what an A Minor chord is, let alone the choices between legal frameworks.

3b) citation-based subsidy

PRS receives usage data from licensees and then pays out to rights holders based on that usage. So nothing new here.

3c) mandatory auctioning (e.g. the copyright owner sets a price, pays X% of that price as a tax, but must sell to the highest bidder over that price, potentially annually at increasing scale?)

So only one entity ever can have access to The Average Band's brilliant new album: The Average Album?

3d) I'm positive thee are dozens of other (better) systems too, I just thought of those on a whim

If you've thought of these on a whim then I can almost guarantee that they will not work. In all my time at PRS, the "blue sky thinking" ideas were always the ones that resulted in members and/or Joe public getting angry at us over the phone.

There is not one single specific model that works best. There are different models because they fit the purposes for which the music is used best. The system is complicated and there is not a one-size-fits all solution...

The model that exists now actually pays rights holders pretty fairly, and is tried and tested over a number of years.

4) So the opportunities for "Remixes" are a bit of an issue in copyright at the minute, yes. WIPO put out a report mentioning the issue in 2015 and the potential need for reform. But you seem to be basing your position the idea that all rights holders will deny the use of a sample. Which just isn't true. 90% of the time they just want to be remunerated for the sample's use. Then of course comes the degree of the renumeration, which requires some negotiation. But I manage to make music and use samples perfectly legally. Why can't others?

5) How do you think Joe Average is going to fare when he has to learn about Boltzmann constants just to work out whether he can use a sample or not?

6) I noticed you didn't respond to my point about losing out on all my investment over the last 10 years. Any particular reason?

1 comments

You have lots of points; I don't have the time to respond to each and every one (that's also the reply to your point 6 ;-) )

Overall: the point I'm trying to get across is that copyright must serve society and consumers first, and not rightsholders. If you want to think of it in terms of a transaction: the creator is being hired to provide a service, and that's the extent of the remuneration that should be provided, not more. Secondly, that it's not all or nothing; we could use a shorter copy right (or no copyright, eventually) and encourage creation differently. Finally, there's no question that I'm not going to come up with something as fully fleshed out as hundreds of years of legal precedent; nor even that if people in general did attempt such change with better and more fleshed out ideas that we wouldn't lose anything. But retaining every last specific positive aspect of copyright is an unnecessary bar; the replacement merely needs to have a better net benefit than indefinite copyright (which is the practical norm today). So some of the issues you point out are misunderstandings of what I meant; others are things I'm sure are plain bad ideas, but some are valid, yet acceptable. It's OK to have serious flaws, because copyright has really terrible flaws.

1c: boosting creativity in some cases is laudable... if there were no downsides. But there are huge downsides. And I'm not sure the upsides are worth the downsides at all, let alone a more realistic alternative with a pared back (but still present) copyright with some additional incentives.

2a: no. The statue of Anne was more complex than that. Vested interests (publishers) obviously wanted the control, but to sell it to the parliament and the public, which had interests in the matter, they needed to rephrase it to be in the public interest. And perhaps the mechanics of the act weren't ideal, or perhaps some of the drafters were entirely selfish; but the fact remains that it formally was to benefit "learning" in general. One hint of that is the act's title: "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Copies, during the Times therein mentioned" - we now call it the statute of Anne ;-).

3a: mandatory fixed-price licensing: no exceptions. No data, no licensing; i.e. it's in the seller's interest to ensure that data can be made available, as it is in the buyers. This isn't an attempt to cover all bases (e.g. live); but rather to avoid the market distortions inherent in granting control to the licensing person. Literally applied to remixes that would imply that the end-user must pay the full price for each sample used in the mix - but only once, no matter how many songs it's in. You're right, this may not be practical; or perhaps it's usable for a subsection of the problem (again, the point is to explore ideas, not propose a one-sized fits all solution to everything).

3b) Perfect! we're in agreement. Who cares about new? Again: the aim is to slowly pare back copyright, and, where that would lose some of its benefits, to find alternatives that are also beneficial (even if perhaps in different ways).

4) copyright holders routinely deny the permission for derivatives. How many derivatives of windows did you see back in it's heyday? How many derivatives of mickey mouse? The control is absolute, and that is absolutely too much. Finally, and perhaps the greatest loss: people don't even bother trying to remix because it's just so impractical.

5) You don't need to be a legal scholar to use copyright either, and that is largely because people get used to it, and also because when push comes to shove you can hire somebody else that's an expert. Joe Average in some hypothetical alternative could do the same. You're implicitly assuming some kind of radical, sudden, unannounced change, and yes, in that scenario Joe Average would get confused. But not if Joe Average grew up with the alternative, and has lots of friends and examples, and can hire an expert when really necessary. Finally don't forget that Joe Average at the end of the day simply isn't all that relevant here. It's at worst unfortunate if they can't go on using exactly the same business model as before. They'll be new opportunities, to be sure, and a looong transition period (since clawing back existing copyright terms is likely infeasible). The issue is whether it's good enough for creativity without all the downsides of inflexibility and control that copyright has.

> Overall: the point I'm trying to get across is that copyright must serve society and consumers first, and not rightsholders. If you want to think of it in terms of a transaction: the creator is being hired to provide a service, and that's the extent of the remuneration that should be provided, not more.

So music is just a service economy? This is quite a simplistic viewpoint.

Copyright should serve both interests. Protect the rightsholders and allow people to use the works. Which is what exists right here, right now.

If it serves both those points already, it clearly ain’t that broke.

> Secondly, that it's not all or nothing; we could use a shorter copy right (or no copyright, eventually) and encourage creation differently.

Sure. We could. I’d love to see how big media companies act when there’s no copyright on anything anywhere. Rather than freeing creativity, it would free their bottom lines.

Also remember that most musicians don’t earn linearly from their work. It’s a long tail.

> 1c: boosting creativity in some cases is laudable... if there were no downsides. But there are huge downsides. And I'm not sure the upsides are worth the downsides at all, let alone a more realistic alternative with a pared back (but still present) copyright with some additional incentives.

You’re not sure the upsides are worth it. I am. I live in the upsides. I’ve lived with people living on the upsides. Just because you can’t see value doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You can only see reality as you see it.

And yes, I’m biased. I get how frustrating it must be to have a YouTube video demonetised. But things like YouTube operated outside of copyright law for so long I think it’s fair they get their comeuppance.

> Again: the aim is to slowly pare back copyright

You’ve mentioned your aim 3 times, and it seems to be different each time. So which is it? Provide benefit to society, pare back copyright (maybe not all of it) or remove copyright altogether?

> 4) copyright holders routinely deny the permission for derivatives. How many derivatives of windows did you see back in it's heyday? How many derivatives of mickey mouse? The control is absolute, and that is absolutely too much. Finally, and perhaps the greatest loss: people don't even bother trying to remix because it's just so impractical.

Depends on the copyright holder. And there are thousands of musical remixes being released everyday with the rights holders consent.

There is a balance in copyright. People who don’t want their works used can say no. If they don’t mind, they can negotiate. If they don’t care, they can just not register the work.

That is the balance. Want to remix a Lady Gaga song? Good luck. Want to remix Average Joe? You’ve got a shot.

By no means is it perfect. But I’d rather an imperfect system than be forced to give control out when I don’t want to.

Incidentally, anyone can make a parody of Lady Gaga songs. So there are existing exceptions that do allow for certain things under fair dealing.

> 5) You don't need to be a legal scholar to use copyright either, and that is largely because people get used to it, and also because when push comes to shove you can hire somebody else that's an expert.

I am an anomaly in the musician world. I worked on policy at PRS for music. So the 170 page distribution document was my bible. That’s the only reason I know what I know about copyright.

There are vast swathes of policy I never touched. Never even looked at. There’s that many different scenarios to cater for.

Average Joe is most definitely not a legal scholar. He gets confused about why TV and Radio are paid differently. He sometimes checks his cheque and is pleased when it’s near £100 (phew, one less gig to play this month!).

Average Joe also can’t afford to hire someone to understand this stuff for him. So when push comes to shove, he has to get a job in a print shop.

That’s why the system, as it stands now, works. The big hitters subsidise the little guys, potentially for decades. Then some of the little guys become big hitters and the cycle starts over again.

> You're implicitly assuming some kind of radical, sudden, unannounced change, and yes, in that scenario Joe Average would get confused.

In my experience, Joe Average got confused even if the change was announced way ahead of time. The phones in our membership department were often a difficult job as a lot of musicians fundamentally do not get on well with legal stuff. Thats why they’re musicians, otherwise they’d be lawyers...

> Finally don't forget that Joe Average at the end of the day simply isn't all that relevant here.

Once again, the people who actually create the stuff, which you say benefits society, are not relevant at all?

Seriously man. This is why copyright is designed the way it is today. Because they are relevant. Our legal system places an inherent value on the work they do and deems that their work should be protected.

————

Overall - I’m happy with the current system as a musician. You’re unhappy with the current system as a [insert label here].

I’ve made a choice to accept the system for what it is and to work within the confines of it. It’s much more productive and my head hurts a lot less.

Much like tax law. We all have to pay tax, right? But no one likes paying tax...