If u use non-techical words (just as nina) maybe a public message like this would be interesting and not hard to undertsand (yes, the english is not my natal language)
This whole industry is totally messed up. It produces lousy music and blames CD-copies. It takes legal actions when it is stupid and does not when it should. The music industry was fighting online for so long instead of embracing it like they do now.
At the moment I could go to jail because I am putting a video on YouTube where I am videotaping the Hollywood sign and a car stops next to me and I happen to record the song from the radio playing inside that car.
This whole industry is totally messed up. It produces lousy music and blames CD-copies. It takes legal actions when it is stupid and does not when it should. The music industry was fighting online for so long instead of embracing it like they do now.
At the moment I could go to jail because I am putting a video on YouTube where I am videotaping the Hollywood sign and a car stops next to me and I happen to record the song from the radio playing inside that car.
spiegel.de has an article about new research showing *no* copyright law in Germany in the 19th century appears to be responsible for Germany's dramatic growth in contrast to some of its European neighbors where copyright monopolies were strong. It even says how a German historical nobody made more in royalties from "Principles of Leather Tanning" than British Mary Shelley did for her horror novel "Frankenstein" -- again, consistent with Nina's results.
@hozelda Don't know what the paper claims beyond correlation, but widespread access to information was very likely a very important contributing factor. Also, I wonder what a study would reveal on earnings in general (a larger market means more money in total but there are more competitors).
google "theepochtimes nina" to get an article from a few months ago covering the income Nina made with Sita Sings the Blues by sharing it openly with everyone (CC-by-SA) as contrasted to what she was offered by a "reputable distributor" who leverages traditional copyright restrictions. Short-circuiting the reputable distributor by commercially enabling everyone, her work spread much faster, bringing more income and more opportunities.
$50K max lifetime vs. $130K+ after just 1 year and growing
1-Humble Indie Bundle 3. check out the youtube video for example.
I think some of the software games are open source but generally they are not, unfortunately; however, they don't seem to be a group that will go after "pirates" and they allow you to set the price during the HIB special (it's over now).
2-khanacademy (dot org).
The Khan learning appears to be CC-by-NC allowing anyone to download for free. Not ideal IMO but supports "piracy"
Aside from the business model (which is why I drew attention to it before), we can ask about their sales/losses.
Many groups like to say that if 1 million pirate a digital work that retails at $10, then they lost 10 million. This is ridiculous.
The HIB3 sold over 300,000 @ average $6 on what retails at $50. By that analysis, (assuming those paying $6 are partial pirates), the HIB3 resulted in some $15 million in losses instead of the $2 million in sales/gains.
@copyrightrants "Another Day, Another Study That Says 'Pirates' Are The Best Customers... This Time From HADOPI" I mention this as a potential defense for at least some of what youtube and others similar sites accomplish. The study correlates higher piracy with greater purchasing. If piracy does promote purchasing (as many believe it can), then this would appear to justify some revenues for youtube for their service. [Note the author of the study is hardly a piracy advocate.]
@copyrightrants I know you aren't a youtube/google fan, but, fwiw, here is an article I came to from a techdirt piece dated yesterday (july 26).
From torrentfreak: "Former Google CIO: LimeWire Pirates Were iTunes’ Best Customers"
>> But those “dirty file-sharing guys” had an even dirtier secret. During his stint at EMI, Merrill profiled the behavior of LimeWire users and discovered something rather interesting. Those same file-sharing “thieves” were also iTunes’ biggest spenders.
@copyrightrants We can protect existing contract expectations (eg, of long term royalties) despite changing copyright law to lower the duration significantly if the short durations would apply only to new works.
@copyrightrants ..specifically, without the "you'll earn royalties for 1 million years" excuse and deception, the composer market would force recoup more into the present. Of course, the big copyright owners perhaps can capitalize on eons of monopoly, so the small artist has to compete with that even if they can't make use of it nearly as well. [Another reason why major copyright holders (assuming they can buy the copyrights as is case in US) should get a much shorter monopoly period if any.]
As concerns youtube, there might be a list of items they would have to fulfill (esp short-term) that would not require the full strength and power of copyright. In any case, I am in favor of a different set of rules (for ethical play) depending on commercial scale and related matters.
The squeeze you mentioned: that is a product also of our current extremes. With new accepted norms, the story would be different....
@copyrightrants BTW, the paid tv music jobs.. those pay for your time and expertise (and maybe endorsement), right? Would they be so different if copyright were weak or even gone?
The content producers start forcing you to write "for free" because "well, you can collect roaylties on your work for years to come". But then that system is being attacked by the users (this is the reason why Nina's video got on my nerves so much)
So as a composer who pretty much only writes commissioned music I'm being attacked from all sides. And I'm providing work for a couple of others
And that really can't be what everyone has in mind, right?
The bottom line today: copyright exists (and even author rights), and you can depend on it. Nothing I said changes that.
However, hopefully you will have a chance to prove at least semi-accurate what I have mentioned by trying to give the new media more opportunities as well. I did mention of cases (D Bull being one specific) of those who were not huge or who regardless grew bigger because of "piracy".
And without agreeing with everything techdirt+commenting say, you may want to drop by.
@hozelda hey, I'm not completely disillusioned and I welcome new media.
But it has to be _fair_ and YouTube isn't fair. YouTube is exploiting on many many many levels. And so is Spotify.
And if they claim they can't make a business model out of it that pays everyone fairly then, well, then there's a _factual_ issue here. And then we're coming back to the user who just wants everything for next to nothing. And that only works in fairy tale land where you don't get hungry and need shelter.
@copyrightrants youtube doesn't preserve comment threads well (at least not from what I see), so let me clarify that the comment "By reaching out, you may find them very eager...." is a reply to what you mentioned about others selling your music on Russian websites.
BTW, in the blender and vlc cases, by "exploit" I meant that the others were ignoring the source code access requirements (in one case even adding trojan software) and were hiding and misrepresenting the actual source of the software (no attribution to correct authors and no preservation of copyright license). All the while seeking profit.
Part of the solution is educating the audience to favor open content (esp for software) and from the original sources (who may then endorse partners).
An "act" can be a partner. For example, attract them (via your website and/or direct contact, esp if you hear they do your music) by offering exclusive (early bird) music and access. Offer to work with those folks in various creative ways. They can help you sell the music and give you back royalties. You can further promote them on your website (you gain from their sales).
Every group (or situation) has a unique personality (context). Address that (customization) for a contract with royalties.
... so I do support author rights over what we have in the US, but that doesn't mean I support laws that are too unfair to many new creators (esp amateurs, young artists, and future generations) or which can add lots of crud to the wheels of collaboration (which is why I support open licenses, especially share-alike/copyleft licenses to fight back and give protection to the small against giants who would take but not give back, while allowing fair commercialization).
@copyrightrants If you wonder why I post so much, it's because I have been a big supporter of open source software and more recently of open content works. I am a supporter of open biz. The key to more even wealth distribution and better democracy and opportunity for many is to empower more people, not to load up with monopolies and with processes that make it difficult for many small independents to collaborate and which give the advantage to professional traders and those with existing wealth
What I meant was that in any business, you frequently will have to advertise and spend to reach a great many more than will ultimately be enticed to buy or to become long-term customers. Of course many will listen for free and not pay. That's the rule, not exception; you will need to reach many no matter the biz. You also need to show you are alive and open for business. You need to tend the business and customers or the appeal will fade or appear dead.
BTW, youtube was a cost center for Google at least just a couple of years back (eg, over 100million loss annually) near the time they bought it. They are in this for the long term and can leverage youtube because they are so large.
Their size is something I don't particularly like, but the point is that this is clearly an opportunity.
@copyrightrants You don't have to support 0 copyright. You can stay with author rights and at the same time be supportive of fans and partners by sharing and by supporting reasonable copyrights (eg, much shorter in length and less stifling to derivative works).
The piece that sends your music off the charts might come from a particular "cover" or fan respin. People (not all) will sniff around, and if they think the creator is cool and worth investing in they will.
@copyrightrants A guy in the UK, Dan Bull, posted on youtube a funny piece on a particular legislator supporting abusive IP law. It was a huge fan favorite, leading to many donations and buying of his past works (more $ in one week than he had made in years composing). [Look at the offer on his facebook page.]
Many others have seen similar spikes in sales (I already mentioned the Brazilian author, who now loves "piracy"). At techdirt, they encourage you to copy their postings. Be THE source.
@copyrightrants Look up TED events "ideas worth spreading". They decided to promote the speaking events online and sales to attend the live events soared through the roof (?going from a few hundred to multiple $K per ticket). They now make much more money, can expand, and rub elbows with celebrities and others who are driving prices up to attend (this brings in other revenue sources down the line). Note: they didn't do DMCA take-downs, enabling countless to see these for $0.
@hozelda I know.. I said I'd shut up, but I just found this great article:
Music Industry Myths: You Can Do It All Online by Heather McDonald
I should be _writing music_!
I ran a successfull crowdfunding campaign when people didn't even know what that was, but financially it was a desaster because I spent _way_ too much TIME on the thing. Time I could have used finishing the film music and the film would be finished now instead of waiting for me to finish my paid tv music jobs.
@copyrightrants Thanks for the article. I think I agree with it pretty much and also what you mentioned about time costs (though that is a business decision that can always pay off later, perhaps making dip 2, 3, and beyond easier and cheaper). The article is consistent with placing a value on partnering (especially if you let others do most of the business work).
@copyrightrants Yes, the "acts" draw more fan dedication than people behind the scenes (eg, lyrics and music writers), but you have to promote yourself. Strike royalty deals with different artists and make it a point (eg, for early access to your music) to advertise your stuff. Build a character. Consider doing some free tutorials on techniques. Consider a service where you write up little custom songs for events or commercials. Allow yourself to be contracted out (perhaps along with an "act").
@copyrightrants Don't devalue others' contributions (including as inspiration to you, something copyright does with its block on many derivs) or think your work does all the pulling. It's ridiculous to say that youtube does not help sell and promote you a great amount; however, over time they do make back their investments and then a bunch (if things work out). No matter what youtube does, you can gain from it and then kick into CwF+RtB from your own website (or partner with others to help you).
@copyrightrants If you write good stuff, you will likely have many many more that would be willing to listen for $0 than buy, but that is life. People will not throw money out. People don't pay to hear the radio or TV and they pay a fixed fee for cable/satellite/etc. It's once they are hooked that they consider becoming spenders and fans (which can be re-payed as free promotion, attending an event your endorse or appear in, etc).
@copyrightrants You have to connect with fans and work it (or partner with so who does). "Trying it all once" doesn't cut it. If you don't like promoting and building a brand, then that is a problem solved, eg, by someone on your behalf. Today, for example, someone else likely does this for you, and promoting is a completely different issue than copyright. Look up "CwF + RtB". Be a partner others like and they will also promote you for free.
@copyrightrants Have you tried CC-by-sa? 9-inch nails, for example, is a band that led Amazon album sales in 2008. The album was selling at $5 when I last checked. At the same time, they give away the music on their website using CC-by-NC I think (it's not CC-by-SA, but it's something). This promotes them, their concerts or other performances and merchandise. It creates value for their brand (useful for endorsements). ETC.
@copyrightrants Not every creator is going to agree. I get the feeling you haven't really tried the right way, but that is your option (why should you since you have copyright behind you). Feel free to study those who are having success. I don't know what you mean about Nina popular before this Internet thing. Sita StB is a new work that helped draw attention to her. I'll repeat. I think you should partner with "acts". AND *weak copyright* is much more reasonable as a compromise.
@hozelda well... my experience of the last ten years:
- I was always early (mistake, I know, but I can't help it)
- I probably didn't use the right words (has nothing to do with the music!!! So as a composer you then need the extra help of PR or have that talent yourself), it's the status quo: pretty wins
- there is music of myself (that I'm _giving away_ on my own page) BEING SOLD on russian sites. Now, I doubt that they sold much, as I'm not a household name, but it's still not OK I feel
@copyrightrants I have seen complaints of blender (see dot org) and vlc software being exploited by others. I emailed the blender folks at the time to have them reach out to these people. They likely can tap into an audience that would likely be beyond your reach or appeal. I think reaching out can lead to a win-win-win, but you'd have to try it. Remember who the expert and original source is. Consider what else you can bring to the table that complements that potential partner.
@copyrightrants By reaching out, you may find them very eager. If they imagine you'd never partner (they may not know you or think you'd look down on them) or worse sue them, then understandably they will try to leverage what they can in silence. There are bad apples, but, for the good folks, you are THE source. Try to get access to the audience to make your sell. Support good partners (ie, endorse), and this will pressure bad partners. Let people know you are open for further business. Coelho!
@hozelda I don't agree with you. The examples you cite are the BIG guys (Coelho, Nine Inch Nails, etc... all established well _before_ the internet age, of course _they_ like it) but never mind that fact.
In my opinion (and that's the last I'm going to reply to you as we said all that we can say) all the arguments that you cite do _not_ play into the hands of the individual.
All your arguments help everyone who's good at multiplying but not good at creating and many times those are exploiters.
To capitalize, you have to have something to sell eventually to the newly and cheaply acquired fans. Studies show that the biggest "pirates" are the biggest spenders. Why are you blaming youtube? They are taking money from other middlemen. They aren't taking money from you because their services are very cheap and consumers have more money to spend on the artists. Efficiently and cheaply unite a consumer with a product/brand.
It's not obvious what I am saying, but it is the future.
@hozelda well, the only reason why the eyeballs are on YouTube in the first place is the content. Check Googles financials statement (they're a public company so the results are all there).
The examples you cite are the BIG guys, even Nina herself was way successful BEFORE (...) this whole internet thing happened (well, at least the part where it now finally makes sense financially).
@hozelda Talk to the little guys (like me). I've tried it all (torrents, forums, direct sale) and I'm a pretty successful composer making a very very good living off of my music, so there's DEFINITELY interest in my work.
All those, who claim they want to help people didn't. And it wasn't that I was drowned in the noise, I was a very early adopter on most things I tried.
But in the end: the audience (and thus the platform) wants the big names FOR FREE. That's all.
I think one should check out the following YouTube video "Richard Stallman at UofC" to get another view on the subject of copyright. The campaign agaist sharing is not coming from authors but from those who really refuse to pay the authors. There's another way of approaching the issue and even if one doesn't agree with his "solution" I think he has a number of good points.
@copyrightrants Maybe that's because it's not that different. As a composer I'm sure you use tools such as MIDI sequencers. How is that different from programming and writing software? OK, half kidding but I did both and know they are not completely different. The law speaks of authors, not just artists for good reasons. Programming can be art just like composing (or not - not all composed music is art) - just to name one example. Copyright applies to all sorts of authors, not just composers.
You may want to read an article in the "Communications of the ACM", 07/2011 Vol. 54 No. 7, pages 29-31 by Pamela Samuelson called "Legally speaking: Too Many Copyrights?". She makes a number of fine points there and states interesting historical facts. Try to be open about it. Change to copyright will come and you won't be able to stop it, since they are long overdue. Mind you: *changes* not the end of copyrights but it all must make sense and be reasonably practical and applicable.
@bassbacke same problem as before, maybe Pamelas terms make it more clear for you: yes, from a USER standpoint, browsing doesn't infringe.
But a platform that makes material available and in doing so profits (either directly by selling advertisement or indirectly by collecting data/profiles to better sell advertisement) should share some of the revenue and not be a whiny bitch about it as YouTube does.
Comprende?
Also again: Nina falsely claimed "censorhip" which is furthest from the truth.
@copyrightrants Have you read the article at all? Pamela did not write a single line about browsers nor about platforms but about the history of copyrights to understand where the current problems come from. Copyrights are for authors, not just artists. Ever considered that?
I've created tons of programs and scripts (and hardware) in my 30 years in IT and I own the copyrights to my works and only I decide what can be done with them. That includes giving them away free of charge if I wish.
All available studies from independent sources (not recording industry players or collection societies) indicates that an end to copyright would benefit creators, not corporations. She paid her licensing fees, so I'm not sure why you want her to pay again (and again, and again) except that you probably have more interest in the big corporations than you indicate. Either you are naive, being misled, or just being misleading, yourself.
@luciasfox Maybe for artists who have their own "act". But for creatives, that are contracted to work _for_ other people the protection is more than necessary. Because these are the people that are being exploited. And it is terrible that even the fellow creatives don't see the different mechanisms of being exploited by the industry or being exploited by the networks/internet platforms.
And all the commentators fail to see the inner workings of all this. It's just sad to see the ignorance.
@copyrightrants Wait, these protections are necessary for people who work FOR other people? You mean, the people who don't even get to keep their copyrights because of a 'work for hire' situation? I want you to stop and rethink that for a moment for me, because that officially made no sense at all.
As for freelancers, I have heard from many who think copyright has gone too far. Just as many who say they can make their living without it entirely.
I've been trying to tell this for the better part of the last two weeks. And if you read the text, you'd know.
I'll say it once again:
Germany has _much_ better protection for the individual creator. Work for hire DOES NOT EXIST here.
That is a _good_ thing. And that is the reason, why the propaganda of the creatives in the US will not work, because the _wrong_ people jump on it over here (the pirates, YouTube, the spotifys... all those services that exploit).
@copyrightrants Since I only entered this particular conversation a few days ago, you haven't been telling me anything. However, when I hear from German artists who feel the same as you, then I'll believe you. Until then, I'll stand with my belief that you are either ignorant or paid by the big companies/collection societies. Sorry, I've heard far too much that refutes you.
@copyrightrants If you are being honest about what you are saying (and I assume you are), then you might want to follow techdirt.org, as Mike and others do a good job overall of showing abuses by industry and government AND successes many are having by embracing piracy or (as Nina has done) embracing open content licenses like CC-by-SA. Share-alike licenses are copyright licenses that serve as a defense against very large organizations.
@hozelda You are right. It's terrible when industry conglomerates and the likes rip off artists.
That's why _in this particular case_ we should be on the side of GEMA, because GEMA does represent the artists themselves and YouTube is ripping them off. Literally! In more ways than financial.
And that is what's at the center of this discussion.
Copyright law in Germany is VERY FAIR to the individual. But we have an international campaign to shove the US system down everyones throat.
@copyrightrants I don't like US style copyright, but an important part of the discussion is also the monopoly rights themselves and the costs to society. On the fairness of those rights from the pov of everyone but the owner, at least from the US duration and breadth perspective, we probably would not agree.
@hozelda the thing is: if it protects the individual from marauding pirates monetizing on their work then copyright can't be strong enough. If it is about protecting the rights of huge corporations then the law has to be balanced between what's useful to society vs. their business model (and thus also the people and their families that work for them).
It's a vast issue, which is why it's driving me so mad, that people like Nina make it all about THEMSELVES!
@copyrightrants I don't know who you mean by marauding pirates, but Nina and many others have seen their income go up when they shared with so-called marauding pirates. Culture works its way into your mind and society. It's a common language. We share English, don't we? We have to use parts of culture, but copyright maximalists want to sue you if they simply smell something related to their work within yours. Also, copyright doesn't just block giants as you appear to suggest. Fines are ridiculou
@hozelda I'll tell you who I mean: YouTube, Grooveshark, Rapidshare, all the torrent sites. I do NOT mean the users and I thought I made that clear, but I guess I didn't.
So there: the people that PROFIT from piracy have to SHARE those profits. Then everyone is happy, especially the user.
@copyrightrants It wasn't clear who you meant because many people could conceivably include something on their website or brochures that leverages something someone else created.
Even these sites you mention, they include costly servers and do help pull in many people under one roof creating an audience that you almost surely would not have by yourself. Those eyeballs can help you sell your works or services. You don't have to support the infrastructure or pay word of mouth or costly ads.
Nina has written about her successes. techdirt has many case studies (and I mentioned a recent study funded by the firms fighting piracy that concludes piracy helps them). Paulo Coelho from Wikipedia article: "A fan posted a Russian translation of one of his novels online. Sales of his book jumped from 3,000 to one million in three years." CC-by-sa requires linking back for credit.
The small artist stands to gain a lot just because they ordinarily couldn't tap into such a huge audience.
@copyrightrants You bring up a concern many probably have when you draw the distinction between employees and "acts"; however, I don't see how you can agree that current copyright law is at all fair to society. And I hope you at least understand the difference between copyright (a very long and a bit too broad monopoly over copies even of information) and endorsement (a point of truth and marketing for the author, which Nina uses quite extensively).
@copyrightrants What we need is a way to help all "creatives" easily tap into fair business partnerships rather than to support the over-blown monopolies. An industry will develop to support authors. We can add other laws. I might even say I like natural inalienable rights but not the powers given from that point onward, namely with copyright as it exists. See the July 21 techdirt story: Industry Suppressed Report Showing Users Of Shuttered 'Pirate' Site Probably Helped Movie Industry...
@copyrightrants That story essentially points out again that Google and "piracy" do the work that otherwise authors would have to spend tons of money to do, promote their work. Strong copyright is a socially unethical tool used by middlemen traders to hold society and authors hostage to maximize their profits. It keeps authors from being able to collaborate with each other and with fans easily, giving Big Money a powerful lever. Fortunately, CC-by-SA counter-acts this, but many still don't useit
@copyrightrants Have you heard of open source software and of the large and increasing number of people who get paid to write it or who volunteer that license on their works? You are expert and you want everyone to know. You can add value in many ways afterward. You also want to leverage other experts to help you built really great things together, things that would rival what Hollywood and others can create. ..Or heard of scoap3? How about Brazilian author Coelho's use of piracy?
@copyrightrants "Piracy" removes the need for the controlling service and lucrative position of many of today's major monopoly middlemen. These like piracy for promotional reasons, but they want to make sure it is seen as a horrible thing by industry and by government. People reward creators not middlemen. People give free testimonials and spend saved money in order to help and be like creators, not middlemen (though "middlemen" can obviously make money and sell other products/services).
@copyrightrants Ever thought about teaming up with another "creative" who is an "act" in order to build an even larger whole? Be part of a team that can pull in money without giving most of it away to any middleman who is not adding significant value and be a part of making lots more fans happy and yourself having greater opportunity for creating.
Skills matter and are marketable. Past works are evidence of it. Society works this way.
@copyrightrants Other industries don't have copyright monopolies, yet those experts make money.
Who gains from strong copyrights? IMO The very wealthy traders love things they can own and control exclusively, as it allows them to amass more money using their superior trading and business skill. Since intellectual content isn't land or some other physical scarcity that could traditionally be bought, they had to create such an artificial scarcity, strong copyright (patent) monopolies.
- her video was blocked by somebody for some reason, she addressed (attacked) the wrong entity
- she rode the wave of the recent YouTube blockings to her own advantage and to further her cause (look her up and you'll find her agenda)
- as a creative myself I'm offended if people demand the end of copyright only so big corporations can take the field and make money while everyone else struggles.
@copyrightrants True, Nina did address the wrong entity - it is not GEMA that took down the video. However, this is really not easy to see, not even when you are German. So the blame should go to Youtube for not correctly pinning down why the video was taken down.
@copyrightrants You described your behaviour nicely but attack the wrong entity.
She never demanded any such thing as the end of copyright.
You are either mentally challenged or a troll trying to get some attention by making absurd claims, insults and such. That's how I read you and I'm sure I'm not alone with this assessment.
You claim to be a creator - of what? Show your true face for once.
@bassbacke if you look for Nina Paley around the internet, you will quickly see her agenda.
Go to questioncopyright for example, she's on staff there. And their agenda? Getting rid of copyright protection so it's easier for mashup "artists" to create their "art". Does the originator have a chance of compensation? No. How convenient. I can create stuff without sharing generated revenue.
Sure, all art steals from the art before, but that's a lame excuse for mediocre work.
Again, I've never oppose copyright as a concept but I also don't care what she does otherweise. You can't "catch" her in this particular case since she did not do any of the things you acuse her of in this particular case. Try to "catch" her with something else.
Also there is a difference between copyright and organizations such as GEMA.
I own the copyrights to all my creations by law. GEMA is just a private organization and I know exactly who is at the center of their attention. Not the artist.
@copyrightrants >> as a creative myself I'm offended if people demand the end of copyright only so big corporations can take the field and make money while everyone else struggles.
So are you saying that you fear the abolishing of copyright because you fear large corporations but you don't fear individuals, small sole-proprietorships, small businesses, ?? Or do you want to block everyone? I'm curious.
Why is it that by sharing Nina made much more money than professionals were telling her she would make under a best case scenario (for Sita Sings the Blues)? Why have many others noticed a significant rise in sales when "pirates" got hold of their material? Why did the recording industry (or one of those groups) hide research they commissioned that stated that piracy helps income.. eg because the copyright infringers develop more reasons and interest in spending on that particular artist, etc?
Nina uses CC-by-SA (which relies on copyright and requires that those who use it also open up the derivative work -- great for putting pressure on those who profit, to give you further opportunity to use their other stuff to profit back). It has helped her. Endorsements have helped her. Anyone can say all they want about her position, but, in the end, it is just talk. Many are making money by allowing people to spread digital versions of their works. Big Co don't like it when artists share.
@basgras well, you know, as a creator this is the way I felt when Anonymous posted their horrendous message a couple of weeks back. Because they weren't attacking "an organization" They were attacking all creators and thus it was very personal.
And in the interest of not becoming a personal target of these criminally stupid creeps (to which I DO NOT count Nina!!!) I'm doing this anonymously.
GEMA is evil
sleepydutchie 18 hours ago
FUCK U GEMA
despameratos 1 month ago
If u use non-techical words (just as nina) maybe a public message like this would be interesting and not hard to undertsand (yes, the english is not my natal language)
therealcaz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This whole industry is totally messed up. It produces lousy music and blames CD-copies. It takes legal actions when it is stupid and does not when it should. The music industry was fighting online for so long instead of embracing it like they do now.
At the moment I could go to jail because I am putting a video on YouTube where I am videotaping the Hollywood sign and a car stops next to me and I happen to record the song from the radio playing inside that car.
StopSpamming1 5 months ago
This whole industry is totally messed up. It produces lousy music and blames CD-copies. It takes legal actions when it is stupid and does not when it should. The music industry was fighting online for so long instead of embracing it like they do now.
At the moment I could go to jail because I am putting a video on YouTube where I am videotaping the Hollywood sign and a car stops next to me and I happen to record the song from the radio playing inside that car.
StopSpamming1 5 months ago
spiegel.de has an article about new research showing *no* copyright law in Germany in the 19th century appears to be responsible for Germany's dramatic growth in contrast to some of its European neighbors where copyright monopolies were strong. It even says how a German historical nobody made more in royalties from "Principles of Leather Tanning" than British Mary Shelley did for her horror novel "Frankenstein" -- again, consistent with Nina's results.
hozelda 6 months ago
@hozelda Don't know what the paper claims beyond correlation, but widespread access to information was very likely a very important contributing factor. Also, I wonder what a study would reveal on earnings in general (a larger market means more money in total but there are more competitors).
hozelda 6 months ago
google "theepochtimes nina" to get an article from a few months ago covering the income Nina made with Sita Sings the Blues by sharing it openly with everyone (CC-by-SA) as contrasted to what she was offered by a "reputable distributor" who leverages traditional copyright restrictions. Short-circuiting the reputable distributor by commercially enabling everyone, her work spread much faster, bringing more income and more opportunities.
$50K max lifetime vs. $130K+ after just 1 year and growing
hozelda 6 months ago
Two items you might find interesting.
1-Humble Indie Bundle 3. check out the youtube video for example.
I think some of the software games are open source but generally they are not, unfortunately; however, they don't seem to be a group that will go after "pirates" and they allow you to set the price during the HIB special (it's over now).
2-khanacademy (dot org).
The Khan learning appears to be CC-by-NC allowing anyone to download for free. Not ideal IMO but supports "piracy"
hozelda 6 months ago
>> Humble Indie Bundle 3
Aside from the business model (which is why I drew attention to it before), we can ask about their sales/losses.
Many groups like to say that if 1 million pirate a digital work that retails at $10, then they lost 10 million. This is ridiculous.
The HIB3 sold over 300,000 @ average $6 on what retails at $50. By that analysis, (assuming those paying $6 are partial pirates), the HIB3 resulted in some $15 million in losses instead of the $2 million in sales/gains.
hozelda 6 months ago
@copyrightrants "Another Day, Another Study That Says 'Pirates' Are The Best Customers... This Time From HADOPI" I mention this as a potential defense for at least some of what youtube and others similar sites accomplish. The study correlates higher piracy with greater purchasing. If piracy does promote purchasing (as many believe it can), then this would appear to justify some revenues for youtube for their service. [Note the author of the study is hardly a piracy advocate.]
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants I know you aren't a youtube/google fan, but, fwiw, here is an article I came to from a techdirt piece dated yesterday (july 26).
From torrentfreak: "Former Google CIO: LimeWire Pirates Were iTunes’ Best Customers"
>> But those “dirty file-sharing guys” had an even dirtier secret. During his stint at EMI, Merrill profiled the behavior of LimeWire users and discovered something rather interesting. Those same file-sharing “thieves” were also iTunes’ biggest spenders.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants We can protect existing contract expectations (eg, of long term royalties) despite changing copyright law to lower the duration significantly if the short durations would apply only to new works.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants ..specifically, without the "you'll earn royalties for 1 million years" excuse and deception, the composer market would force recoup more into the present. Of course, the big copyright owners perhaps can capitalize on eons of monopoly, so the small artist has to compete with that even if they can't make use of it nearly as well. [Another reason why major copyright holders (assuming they can buy the copyrights as is case in US) should get a much shorter monopoly period if any.]
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants [I have to run soon...]
As concerns youtube, there might be a list of items they would have to fulfill (esp short-term) that would not require the full strength and power of copyright. In any case, I am in favor of a different set of rules (for ethical play) depending on commercial scale and related matters.
The squeeze you mentioned: that is a product also of our current extremes. With new accepted norms, the story would be different....
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants BTW, the paid tv music jobs.. those pay for your time and expertise (and maybe endorsement), right? Would they be so different if copyright were weak or even gone?
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda well the problem is as a composer:
The content producers start forcing you to write "for free" because "well, you can collect roaylties on your work for years to come". But then that system is being attacked by the users (this is the reason why Nina's video got on my nerves so much)
So as a composer who pretty much only writes commissioned music I'm being attacked from all sides. And I'm providing work for a couple of others
And that really can't be what everyone has in mind, right?
copyrightrants 7 months ago
The bottom line today: copyright exists (and even author rights), and you can depend on it. Nothing I said changes that.
However, hopefully you will have a chance to prove at least semi-accurate what I have mentioned by trying to give the new media more opportunities as well. I did mention of cases (D Bull being one specific) of those who were not huge or who regardless grew bigger because of "piracy".
And without agreeing with everything techdirt+commenting say, you may want to drop by.
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda hey, I'm not completely disillusioned and I welcome new media.
But it has to be _fair_ and YouTube isn't fair. YouTube is exploiting on many many many levels. And so is Spotify.
And if they claim they can't make a business model out of it that pays everyone fairly then, well, then there's a _factual_ issue here. And then we're coming back to the user who just wants everything for next to nothing. And that only works in fairy tale land where you don't get hungry and need shelter.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants youtube doesn't preserve comment threads well (at least not from what I see), so let me clarify that the comment "By reaching out, you may find them very eager...." is a reply to what you mentioned about others selling your music on Russian websites.
hozelda 7 months ago
BTW, in the blender and vlc cases, by "exploit" I meant that the others were ignoring the source code access requirements (in one case even adding trojan software) and were hiding and misrepresenting the actual source of the software (no attribution to correct authors and no preservation of copyright license). All the while seeking profit.
Part of the solution is educating the audience to favor open content (esp for software) and from the original sources (who may then endorse partners).
hozelda 7 months ago
An "act" can be a partner. For example, attract them (via your website and/or direct contact, esp if you hear they do your music) by offering exclusive (early bird) music and access. Offer to work with those folks in various creative ways. They can help you sell the music and give you back royalties. You can further promote them on your website (you gain from their sales).
Every group (or situation) has a unique personality (context). Address that (customization) for a contract with royalties.
hozelda 7 months ago
... so I do support author rights over what we have in the US, but that doesn't mean I support laws that are too unfair to many new creators (esp amateurs, young artists, and future generations) or which can add lots of crud to the wheels of collaboration (which is why I support open licenses, especially share-alike/copyleft licenses to fight back and give protection to the small against giants who would take but not give back, while allowing fair commercialization).
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants If you wonder why I post so much, it's because I have been a big supporter of open source software and more recently of open content works. I am a supporter of open biz. The key to more even wealth distribution and better democracy and opportunity for many is to empower more people, not to load up with monopolies and with processes that make it difficult for many small independents to collaborate and which give the advantage to professional traders and those with existing wealth
hozelda 7 months ago
"1 fan may = 20 free samples."
What I meant was that in any business, you frequently will have to advertise and spend to reach a great many more than will ultimately be enticed to buy or to become long-term customers. Of course many will listen for free and not pay. That's the rule, not exception; you will need to reach many no matter the biz. You also need to show you are alive and open for business. You need to tend the business and customers or the appeal will fade or appear dead.
hozelda 7 months ago
BTW, youtube was a cost center for Google at least just a couple of years back (eg, over 100million loss annually) near the time they bought it. They are in this for the long term and can leverage youtube because they are so large.
Their size is something I don't particularly like, but the point is that this is clearly an opportunity.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants You don't have to support 0 copyright. You can stay with author rights and at the same time be supportive of fans and partners by sharing and by supporting reasonable copyrights (eg, much shorter in length and less stifling to derivative works).
The piece that sends your music off the charts might come from a particular "cover" or fan respin. People (not all) will sniff around, and if they think the creator is cool and worth investing in they will.
1 fan may = 20 free samples.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants A guy in the UK, Dan Bull, posted on youtube a funny piece on a particular legislator supporting abusive IP law. It was a huge fan favorite, leading to many donations and buying of his past works (more $ in one week than he had made in years composing). [Look at the offer on his facebook page.]
Many others have seen similar spikes in sales (I already mentioned the Brazilian author, who now loves "piracy"). At techdirt, they encourage you to copy their postings. Be THE source.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Look up TED events "ideas worth spreading". They decided to promote the speaking events online and sales to attend the live events soared through the roof (?going from a few hundred to multiple $K per ticket). They now make much more money, can expand, and rub elbows with celebrities and others who are driving prices up to attend (this brings in other revenue sources down the line). Note: they didn't do DMCA take-downs, enabling countless to see these for $0.
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda I know.. I said I'd shut up, but I just found this great article:
Music Industry Myths: You Can Do It All Online by Heather McDonald
I should be _writing music_!
I ran a successfull crowdfunding campaign when people didn't even know what that was, but financially it was a desaster because I spent _way_ too much TIME on the thing. Time I could have used finishing the film music and the film would be finished now instead of waiting for me to finish my paid tv music jobs.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Thanks for the article. I think I agree with it pretty much and also what you mentioned about time costs (though that is a business decision that can always pay off later, perhaps making dip 2, 3, and beyond easier and cheaper). The article is consistent with placing a value on partnering (especially if you let others do most of the business work).
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Yes, the "acts" draw more fan dedication than people behind the scenes (eg, lyrics and music writers), but you have to promote yourself. Strike royalty deals with different artists and make it a point (eg, for early access to your music) to advertise your stuff. Build a character. Consider doing some free tutorials on techniques. Consider a service where you write up little custom songs for events or commercials. Allow yourself to be contracted out (perhaps along with an "act").
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Don't devalue others' contributions (including as inspiration to you, something copyright does with its block on many derivs) or think your work does all the pulling. It's ridiculous to say that youtube does not help sell and promote you a great amount; however, over time they do make back their investments and then a bunch (if things work out). No matter what youtube does, you can gain from it and then kick into CwF+RtB from your own website (or partner with others to help you).
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants If you write good stuff, you will likely have many many more that would be willing to listen for $0 than buy, but that is life. People will not throw money out. People don't pay to hear the radio or TV and they pay a fixed fee for cable/satellite/etc. It's once they are hooked that they consider becoming spenders and fans (which can be re-payed as free promotion, attending an event your endorse or appear in, etc).
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants You have to connect with fans and work it (or partner with so who does). "Trying it all once" doesn't cut it. If you don't like promoting and building a brand, then that is a problem solved, eg, by someone on your behalf. Today, for example, someone else likely does this for you, and promoting is a completely different issue than copyright. Look up "CwF + RtB". Be a partner others like and they will also promote you for free.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Have you tried CC-by-sa? 9-inch nails, for example, is a band that led Amazon album sales in 2008. The album was selling at $5 when I last checked. At the same time, they give away the music on their website using CC-by-NC I think (it's not CC-by-SA, but it's something). This promotes them, their concerts or other performances and merchandise. It creates value for their brand (useful for endorsements). ETC.
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda sorry, one more word on Nine Inch Nails.
The amount of money that went into marketing and building them up is quite outstanding. Of course that came out of their own coffers, I understand.
But they still profited immensely from the infrastructure and know-how of the industry that built them up.
Tell me _one_ act of the last ten years that made it _huge_ and made it by themselves? Name one.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Not every creator is going to agree. I get the feeling you haven't really tried the right way, but that is your option (why should you since you have copyright behind you). Feel free to study those who are having success. I don't know what you mean about Nina popular before this Internet thing. Sita StB is a new work that helped draw attention to her. I'll repeat. I think you should partner with "acts". AND *weak copyright* is much more reasonable as a compromise.
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda well... my experience of the last ten years:
- I was always early (mistake, I know, but I can't help it)
- I probably didn't use the right words (has nothing to do with the music!!! So as a composer you then need the extra help of PR or have that talent yourself), it's the status quo: pretty wins
- there is music of myself (that I'm _giving away_ on my own page) BEING SOLD on russian sites. Now, I doubt that they sold much, as I'm not a household name, but it's still not OK I feel
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants I have seen complaints of blender (see dot org) and vlc software being exploited by others. I emailed the blender folks at the time to have them reach out to these people. They likely can tap into an audience that would likely be beyond your reach or appeal. I think reaching out can lead to a win-win-win, but you'd have to try it. Remember who the expert and original source is. Consider what else you can bring to the table that complements that potential partner.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants By reaching out, you may find them very eager. If they imagine you'd never partner (they may not know you or think you'd look down on them) or worse sue them, then understandably they will try to leverage what they can in silence. There are bad apples, but, for the good folks, you are THE source. Try to get access to the audience to make your sell. Support good partners (ie, endorse), and this will pressure bad partners. Let people know you are open for further business. Coelho!
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda I don't agree with you. The examples you cite are the BIG guys (Coelho, Nine Inch Nails, etc... all established well _before_ the internet age, of course _they_ like it) but never mind that fact.
In my opinion (and that's the last I'm going to reply to you as we said all that we can say) all the arguments that you cite do _not_ play into the hands of the individual.
All your arguments help everyone who's good at multiplying but not good at creating and many times those are exploiters.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@hozelda in more easy to understand words:
it helps everyone set up shop using other peoples work and monetizing on it.
But the individual looses all protection.
We had this before: it was called the recording industry and they did (and still do) horrendous things to the creators.
The "new media" is doing the exact same thing. It's not far from slavery.
But you will only understand this as a creator once you tried it yourself!
It's a jungle and the individual does need protection!
copyrightrants 7 months ago
To capitalize, you have to have something to sell eventually to the newly and cheaply acquired fans. Studies show that the biggest "pirates" are the biggest spenders. Why are you blaming youtube? They are taking money from other middlemen. They aren't taking money from you because their services are very cheap and consumers have more money to spend on the artists. Efficiently and cheaply unite a consumer with a product/brand.
It's not obvious what I am saying, but it is the future.
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda well, the only reason why the eyeballs are on YouTube in the first place is the content. Check Googles financials statement (they're a public company so the results are all there).
The examples you cite are the BIG guys, even Nina herself was way successful BEFORE (...) this whole internet thing happened (well, at least the part where it now finally makes sense financially).
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@hozelda Talk to the little guys (like me). I've tried it all (torrents, forums, direct sale) and I'm a pretty successful composer making a very very good living off of my music, so there's DEFINITELY interest in my work.
All those, who claim they want to help people didn't. And it wasn't that I was drowned in the noise, I was a very early adopter on most things I tried.
But in the end: the audience (and thus the platform) wants the big names FOR FREE. That's all.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
I think one should check out the following YouTube video "Richard Stallman at UofC" to get another view on the subject of copyright. The campaign agaist sharing is not coming from authors but from those who really refuse to pay the authors. There's another way of approaching the issue and even if one doesn't agree with his "solution" I think he has a number of good points.
bassbacke 7 months ago
@bassbacke I think software is a different issue than music and media.
But I can see how it might be difficult for you to make that distinction.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Maybe that's because it's not that different. As a composer I'm sure you use tools such as MIDI sequencers. How is that different from programming and writing software? OK, half kidding but I did both and know they are not completely different. The law speaks of authors, not just artists for good reasons. Programming can be art just like composing (or not - not all composed music is art) - just to name one example. Copyright applies to all sorts of authors, not just composers.
bassbacke 7 months ago
You may want to read an article in the "Communications of the ACM", 07/2011 Vol. 54 No. 7, pages 29-31 by Pamela Samuelson called "Legally speaking: Too Many Copyrights?". She makes a number of fine points there and states interesting historical facts. Try to be open about it. Change to copyright will come and you won't be able to stop it, since they are long overdue. Mind you: *changes* not the end of copyrights but it all must make sense and be reasonably practical and applicable.
bassbacke 7 months ago
@bassbacke same problem as before, maybe Pamelas terms make it more clear for you: yes, from a USER standpoint, browsing doesn't infringe.
But a platform that makes material available and in doing so profits (either directly by selling advertisement or indirectly by collecting data/profiles to better sell advertisement) should share some of the revenue and not be a whiny bitch about it as YouTube does.
Comprende?
Also again: Nina falsely claimed "censorhip" which is furthest from the truth.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Have you read the article at all? Pamela did not write a single line about browsers nor about platforms but about the history of copyrights to understand where the current problems come from. Copyrights are for authors, not just artists. Ever considered that?
I've created tons of programs and scripts (and hardware) in my 30 years in IT and I own the copyrights to my works and only I decide what can be done with them. That includes giving them away free of charge if I wish.
bassbacke 7 months ago
All available studies from independent sources (not recording industry players or collection societies) indicates that an end to copyright would benefit creators, not corporations. She paid her licensing fees, so I'm not sure why you want her to pay again (and again, and again) except that you probably have more interest in the big corporations than you indicate. Either you are naive, being misled, or just being misleading, yourself.
luciasfox 7 months ago
@luciasfox Maybe for artists who have their own "act". But for creatives, that are contracted to work _for_ other people the protection is more than necessary. Because these are the people that are being exploited. And it is terrible that even the fellow creatives don't see the different mechanisms of being exploited by the industry or being exploited by the networks/internet platforms.
And all the commentators fail to see the inner workings of all this. It's just sad to see the ignorance.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Wait, these protections are necessary for people who work FOR other people? You mean, the people who don't even get to keep their copyrights because of a 'work for hire' situation? I want you to stop and rethink that for a moment for me, because that officially made no sense at all.
As for freelancers, I have heard from many who think copyright has gone too far. Just as many who say they can make their living without it entirely.
As you say, it's sad to see the ignorance.
luciasfox 7 months ago
@luciasfox Dear Lucias Fox,
I've been trying to tell this for the better part of the last two weeks. And if you read the text, you'd know.
I'll say it once again:
Germany has _much_ better protection for the individual creator. Work for hire DOES NOT EXIST here.
That is a _good_ thing. And that is the reason, why the propaganda of the creatives in the US will not work, because the _wrong_ people jump on it over here (the pirates, YouTube, the spotifys... all those services that exploit).
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Since I only entered this particular conversation a few days ago, you haven't been telling me anything. However, when I hear from German artists who feel the same as you, then I'll believe you. Until then, I'll stand with my belief that you are either ignorant or paid by the big companies/collection societies. Sorry, I've heard far too much that refutes you.
luciasfox 7 months ago
@luciasfox it's ok. I've been in your seat for many years. Until I realized where the attacks are coming from:
- people who don't really want to pay for anything and just want everything for free (the pirates and sympathizers
- the new and old media companies that are trying to keep their costs down at the expense of the creative community.
All I can say is: look who benefits, and you will see the truth.
And yes, the users benefit the most, because they get everything for free. It's a fail.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants If you are being honest about what you are saying (and I assume you are), then you might want to follow techdirt.org, as Mike and others do a good job overall of showing abuses by industry and government AND successes many are having by embracing piracy or (as Nina has done) embracing open content licenses like CC-by-SA. Share-alike licenses are copyright licenses that serve as a defense against very large organizations.
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda You are right. It's terrible when industry conglomerates and the likes rip off artists.
That's why _in this particular case_ we should be on the side of GEMA, because GEMA does represent the artists themselves and YouTube is ripping them off. Literally! In more ways than financial.
And that is what's at the center of this discussion.
Copyright law in Germany is VERY FAIR to the individual. But we have an international campaign to shove the US system down everyones throat.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants I don't like US style copyright, but an important part of the discussion is also the monopoly rights themselves and the costs to society. On the fairness of those rights from the pov of everyone but the owner, at least from the US duration and breadth perspective, we probably would not agree.
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda the thing is: if it protects the individual from marauding pirates monetizing on their work then copyright can't be strong enough. If it is about protecting the rights of huge corporations then the law has to be balanced between what's useful to society vs. their business model (and thus also the people and their families that work for them).
It's a vast issue, which is why it's driving me so mad, that people like Nina make it all about THEMSELVES!
Thanks for being reasonable!
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants I don't know who you mean by marauding pirates, but Nina and many others have seen their income go up when they shared with so-called marauding pirates. Culture works its way into your mind and society. It's a common language. We share English, don't we? We have to use parts of culture, but copyright maximalists want to sue you if they simply smell something related to their work within yours. Also, copyright doesn't just block giants as you appear to suggest. Fines are ridiculou
hozelda 7 months ago
@hozelda I'll tell you who I mean: YouTube, Grooveshark, Rapidshare, all the torrent sites. I do NOT mean the users and I thought I made that clear, but I guess I didn't.
So there: the people that PROFIT from piracy have to SHARE those profits. Then everyone is happy, especially the user.
How hard is it to make that mental leap really??
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants It wasn't clear who you meant because many people could conceivably include something on their website or brochures that leverages something someone else created.
Even these sites you mention, they include costly servers and do help pull in many people under one roof creating an audience that you almost surely would not have by yourself. Those eyeballs can help you sell your works or services. You don't have to support the infrastructure or pay word of mouth or costly ads.
hozelda 7 months ago
Nina has written about her successes. techdirt has many case studies (and I mentioned a recent study funded by the firms fighting piracy that concludes piracy helps them). Paulo Coelho from Wikipedia article: "A fan posted a Russian translation of one of his novels online. Sales of his book jumped from 3,000 to one million in three years." CC-by-sa requires linking back for credit.
The small artist stands to gain a lot just because they ordinarily couldn't tap into such a huge audience.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants You bring up a concern many probably have when you draw the distinction between employees and "acts"; however, I don't see how you can agree that current copyright law is at all fair to society. And I hope you at least understand the difference between copyright (a very long and a bit too broad monopoly over copies even of information) and endorsement (a point of truth and marketing for the author, which Nina uses quite extensively).
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants What we need is a way to help all "creatives" easily tap into fair business partnerships rather than to support the over-blown monopolies. An industry will develop to support authors. We can add other laws. I might even say I like natural inalienable rights but not the powers given from that point onward, namely with copyright as it exists. See the July 21 techdirt story: Industry Suppressed Report Showing Users Of Shuttered 'Pirate' Site Probably Helped Movie Industry...
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants That story essentially points out again that Google and "piracy" do the work that otherwise authors would have to spend tons of money to do, promote their work. Strong copyright is a socially unethical tool used by middlemen traders to hold society and authors hostage to maximize their profits. It keeps authors from being able to collaborate with each other and with fans easily, giving Big Money a powerful lever. Fortunately, CC-by-SA counter-acts this, but many still don't useit
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Have you heard of open source software and of the large and increasing number of people who get paid to write it or who volunteer that license on their works? You are expert and you want everyone to know. You can add value in many ways afterward. You also want to leverage other experts to help you built really great things together, things that would rival what Hollywood and others can create. ..Or heard of scoap3? How about Brazilian author Coelho's use of piracy?
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants "Piracy" removes the need for the controlling service and lucrative position of many of today's major monopoly middlemen. These like piracy for promotional reasons, but they want to make sure it is seen as a horrible thing by industry and by government. People reward creators not middlemen. People give free testimonials and spend saved money in order to help and be like creators, not middlemen (though "middlemen" can obviously make money and sell other products/services).
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Ever thought about teaming up with another "creative" who is an "act" in order to build an even larger whole? Be part of a team that can pull in money without giving most of it away to any middleman who is not adding significant value and be a part of making lots more fans happy and yourself having greater opportunity for creating.
Skills matter and are marketable. Past works are evidence of it. Society works this way.
hozelda 7 months ago
@copyrightrants Other industries don't have copyright monopolies, yet those experts make money.
Who gains from strong copyrights? IMO The very wealthy traders love things they can own and control exclusively, as it allows them to amass more money using their superior trading and business skill. Since intellectual content isn't land or some other physical scarcity that could traditionally be bought, they had to create such an artificial scarcity, strong copyright (patent) monopolies.
hozelda 7 months ago
She paid her license for the world. GEMA had no right to interfere.
She's not attacking anything, you are.
Next time show your own face and use your own face to be taken more seriously.
Oh., having a relevant point may also help.
bassbacke 7 months ago
@bassbacke again, my points:
- her video was blocked by somebody for some reason, she addressed (attacked) the wrong entity
- she rode the wave of the recent YouTube blockings to her own advantage and to further her cause (look her up and you'll find her agenda)
- as a creative myself I'm offended if people demand the end of copyright only so big corporations can take the field and make money while everyone else struggles.
- it's shameful and disloyal behaviour.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants True, Nina did address the wrong entity - it is not GEMA that took down the video. However, this is really not easy to see, not even when you are German. So the blame should go to Youtube for not correctly pinning down why the video was taken down.
olaflenz 7 months ago 2
@copyrightrants You described your behaviour nicely but attack the wrong entity.
She never demanded any such thing as the end of copyright.
You are either mentally challenged or a troll trying to get some attention by making absurd claims, insults and such. That's how I read you and I'm sure I'm not alone with this assessment.
You claim to be a creator - of what? Show your true face for once.
bassbacke 7 months ago
@bassbacke if you look for Nina Paley around the internet, you will quickly see her agenda.
Go to questioncopyright for example, she's on staff there. And their agenda? Getting rid of copyright protection so it's easier for mashup "artists" to create their "art". Does the originator have a chance of compensation? No. How convenient. I can create stuff without sharing generated revenue.
Sure, all art steals from the art before, but that's a lame excuse for mediocre work.
copyrightrants 7 months ago
Again, I've never oppose copyright as a concept but I also don't care what she does otherweise. You can't "catch" her in this particular case since she did not do any of the things you acuse her of in this particular case. Try to "catch" her with something else.
Also there is a difference between copyright and organizations such as GEMA.
I own the copyrights to all my creations by law. GEMA is just a private organization and I know exactly who is at the center of their attention. Not the artist.
bassbacke 7 months ago
@copyrightrants >> as a creative myself I'm offended if people demand the end of copyright only so big corporations can take the field and make money while everyone else struggles.
So are you saying that you fear the abolishing of copyright because you fear large corporations but you don't fear individuals, small sole-proprietorships, small businesses, ?? Or do you want to block everyone? I'm curious.
hozelda 7 months ago
Why is it that by sharing Nina made much more money than professionals were telling her she would make under a best case scenario (for Sita Sings the Blues)? Why have many others noticed a significant rise in sales when "pirates" got hold of their material? Why did the recording industry (or one of those groups) hide research they commissioned that stated that piracy helps income.. eg because the copyright infringers develop more reasons and interest in spending on that particular artist, etc?
hozelda 7 months ago
Nina uses CC-by-SA (which relies on copyright and requires that those who use it also open up the derivative work -- great for putting pressure on those who profit, to give you further opportunity to use their other stuff to profit back). It has helped her. Endorsements have helped her. Anyone can say all they want about her position, but, in the end, it is just talk. Many are making money by allowing people to spread digital versions of their works. Big Co don't like it when artists share.
hozelda 7 months ago
This is just creepy...
basgras 7 months ago
@basgras why?
copyrightrants 7 months ago
@copyrightrants the computer voice letter directed at a specific person.. basically.
basgras 7 months ago
@basgras well, you know, as a creator this is the way I felt when Anonymous posted their horrendous message a couple of weeks back. Because they weren't attacking "an organization" They were attacking all creators and thus it was very personal.
And in the interest of not becoming a personal target of these criminally stupid creeps (to which I DO NOT count Nina!!!) I'm doing this anonymously.
copyrightrants 7 months ago