Copyright, the Culture Industry & Mp3’s

What is Copyright?

“Copyright is a type of property that is founded on a person's creative skill and labour. It is designed to prevent the unauthorised use by others of a work, that is, the original form in which an ideaor information has been expressed by the creator” (Attorney General Dept. 2008)

Copyright (economic) Rights Copyright (non-economic) Rights

right to copy the right of integrity of authorship

attribution of ownership communicate

publish distribute

broadcast rights against false attribution of ownership

make available online publicly perform the right of reproduction

But can you really own an idea?

Is thinking really producing?

Can an idea be a product?

If yes then someone owes this guy a lot of money

Apart from a distinct lack of physicality, which makes it difficult to consider pieces of music as objects, one of the biggest problems with copyright is that it only seems to benefit a certain number of people.

In many ways copyright acts as a safeguard for these giant corporations. A way of protecting their commodities.

In fact,

“[Copy]rights accounting for 70 to 80 percent of global revenues end up in the hands of only five companies”

(Kretschmer, 2000)

The development of the notion of copyright can then be seen to be strongly linked to its commercial potential.

The History of Copyright

“The history of the origins and development of the concept of literary property demonstrates the essential function of copyright as an economic right of capital. The incorporation of elements of an author’s moral or natural right into copyright principles has since obscured the separate interests of authors and publishers” (Bettig, 1992).

Therefore, the development of the

notion of copyright is the result of economic interest rather than of moral or ethical concerns

According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation the purpose of copyright is twofold:

"To encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public.“

However

In the way that copyright hopes to encourage creativity, some argue that...

“copyright is both a hindrance and a facilitator of creativity in the digital realm (Klimis & Wallis, 2009).

vs.

A: Arguments for Copyright

Without it, people might cease to be musically creative

The lack of physicality of music suggests it cannot be owned, stolen or even someone’s ‘property’.

B: Arguments against Copyright

Due to The Mp3’s lack of physicality and transferability the format has greatly changed the way music is now produced, consumed and distributed.

The internet has now threatened to dispose of the oligopolistic grip the industry has over the market

Internet sites such as Napster which emerged in 1999 provided a file sharing network that allowed users to

share music with millions of other people

unsurprisingly the music industry clamped down on this

Deeming it a breach of copyright, a lawsuit was filed against Napster in 1999 leading to its closure in February 2001.*

*Napster later remerged in 2003

People download all the time. And there are some clever ways that have allowed people to share music freely.

A number of peer 2 peer (P2P) programs emerged after Napster using an open-sourced software that could not be identified to any particular persons in regards to legal action.

The record industry realized this and started to target individuals who shared large collections of their music via the internet.

Joel Tenenbaum

$22, 500

The amount of money Joel Tenenbaum was charged for each mp3 he illegally downloaded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCOlaxeywlM

$80,000

The amount Jammie Thomas Rossett was charged for each song she illegally downloaded

23 songs X $80,000 =

$1.92 million

Jammie Thomas-Rasset

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6534542.ece

$1.92 million seems a bit pricey for just over two albums... So who is

behind all of this?

Dr. Evil$22,500 per mp3

no...

make it

$80,000

Mwahahahahah...mwa

hahahahahaha...mwh

wahahahaha...mwhaa

hahahahahaahahahah

aha

No its not Dr Evil.

Surely the comparison to Dr Evil paints quite a dramatic picture of the RIAA...right???

Lets look at a set of printable worksheets released to teachers by the RIAA...

This pamphlet is not a joke, and was given to teachers by the Recording Industry Association of America.

Lets take a closer look at one of the excerpts seen in Part 2.

“Now find out if songlifting is a real problem in your community. Use this chart to interview family members and friends about where they get their music. Bring your findings back to class and combine them with those of your classmates. Use your data to figure out how much songlifting occurs among the people you know. See for yourself by completing the calculation below” (Harvey 2009).”

Part 2

There are clearly a number of areas of concern here.

GovernmentalityCulture Industry

Ideology

Fear mongering

But is downloading really stealing?

Does it really affect the industry that much?

The issue over Copyright on the internet can be compared to the anti-taping of recorded music campaign launched in the 1970’s

“In retrospect we know that home taping did not kill musical creativity; nor did it have any negative effects on record sales” (Volgsten & Akerberg, 2006, pp 356).

This campaign claimed that the copying of music via cassette tapes was damaging the creation of more and new music, however...

So why did the music industry complain ?

One argument is that the less sales the industry complained about...

And the music industry likes to secure its place in the distribution and production of music.

Therefore, the major labels are all about profit and control...

Not artistic integrity or creativity

...was a result of consumers shifting to more efficient discount retailers

So when the industry bemoans profit losses as a result of illegal file sharing, can we still believe them?

Oberholzer and Strumpf (2007) found that the music industry’s claim that

as a result of illegal downloading we suffered a 3 per cent or 24 million album loss annually

was in fact, not true at all.

“On the basis of all specification presented in this paper, even our least precise results, we can reject the hypothesis that file sharing cost the industry more than 24 million albums annually” (Oberholzer & Strumpf, 2007).

So why does the industry still feel the need to bemoan such ridiculous profit loses?

The music monopoly has always had a secure place in the market economy because of its controlled means of production and distribution.

The internet as well as new technologies are now changing this.

This has led the music industry, unwillingly, into the online marketplace, were this consumer-led-file-sharing takes place.

By preventing file-sharing and mp3 downloading on the internet, Copyright, is simply a way of securing the industry’s power over the distribution channels (Volgsten & Akerberg, 2006, pp 357).

So...

“But because music is information, music cannot be owned. Information is based on the circulation of knowledge therefore in this regard, copyright, by inhibiting the free circulation of music represents not an opportunity but a threat to musical creativity”

(Volgsten & Akerberg, 2006, pp 357).

“What’s at stake in the filesharingdebates is not simply whether you can download the latest hit single for free or load your iPod with mood music. This is ultimately a struggle over the very ownership of culture, where the media monopoly is working to transform intellectual property into something that more closely resembles physical property: i.e. a phenomenon where ‘ownership’ entails absolute control over how (or if) one’s property circulates through the world” (Rodman and Vanderdonckt 2006, pp. 257).

New media like the Mp3, are effecting peoples everyday lives, as well as culture, communities, institutions, even peoples identities.

What all these debates surrounding copyright and MP3s reveal is that our culture is becoming more and more mediated by these types of new technologies.

Ultimately the issue of Copyright boils down to questions of democracy. Who gets to say what, where and when?

In most cases, that is for the music industry to decide,

“Copyright and trademark enforcement is a turf war over who is going to get to make art with the new technologies. And it seems that if you’re not on the team of a company large enough to control a significant part of the playing field, and cannot afford your very own team of lawyers, you don't get to play” (Klein, 2000, pp. 179).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAjr7I76GsY

What you just heard was a ‘mashup’ created by yours truly. At times it features three different artists singing or playing at the same time.

I was able to do this using a music editing software program known as Audacity. This is free software available to download on the internet!

Whether you complain about artistic intentions or not there is creativity in the mashup, even if it is in most cases, just aesthetic.

Coombe and Klein both show that copyright is only used to prohibit the reuse of music based on economic, rather than moral grounds. They also claim that copyright is an infringement on the democratic right to use one’s symbolic environment in free expression.

(See Coombe, 1998; Klein 2000).

And because creativity has always come from reusing and reworking the past, it shouldn’t be hindered by issues of copyright.

The fact is with new technologies comes new ways to be creative.

“[E]verybody’s music belongs to everybody else” (Keil & Feld1994, pp. 321).

References

• Bettig, R.V. ‘Critical perspectives on the history and philosophy of copyright’. Critical Studies in Mass Communication.1992, 9: 131-155,

• Coombe, R. ‘The Cultural Life of Intellectual Property; Authorship, Appropriation and the Law, Durham: Duke University Press, 1998

• Keil, C. & Feld, S. ‘Commodified grooves’. Music Groove, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1994.

• Klein, N. No Logo. London: Harper Collins, 2000.• Klimis, R. Wallis, G, ‘Copyright and Entrepreneurship: Catalyst or Barrier?’

Information, Communication & Society, 2009: Routledge.• Kretschmer, M. ‘In defence of piracy: Music copyright and creativity in the digital

environment.’ 2000, 11: pp. 1-10• Oberholzer, F. Strumbf, K. ‘The effect of file sharing on record sales’. The journal of

political economy, 2007• Rodman, G. Vanderdonckt, C. ‘Music for nothing or, I want my MP3’. Cultural

Studies: Routledge, 2006.• Volgsten, U. & Akerberg, Y. ‘Copyright, Music and Morals’. Music and Manipulation:

On the social uses and social control of music. New York: Berghann Books, 2006, pp 336-365.