poll on copyrights

I find that this is the bases of ownership: To have the right to choose where you music work is used or not. The rest comes later.

So in this ugly example, if you decide that you allow such a use, as shown in the poll, it appears that you really have no problem with ownership of music.

If you do not allow such use, then you support, at least a tiny bit the idea of copyright (the right to copy and the right to use basically).

The rest is history.

For the record, I created this seperate thread, so as not to derail the other one futher... :)

I'm not sure I agree with the logic behind this. You seem to be suggesting that if you allow your work to be used by anyone then you aren't concerned with the principle of copyright, which I think is really more about whether you receive payment and acknowledgement for your work. Now of course, having discretion over how your work is used is the basis of ownership, but having copyright doesn't mean that you would not allow your work to be used in any way (if it was a choice between allowing your music to used in a porn film or starving, for example?) In any case, who is to judge what constitutes 'misuse'? I'm sure Purcell would be horrified at his Funeral Music for Queen Mary being played on synthesizers in A Clockwork Orange, yet artistically this is a very profound use of the music.

But if the purpose it to horrify people using then that became a piece of art itself. But before that you have to grant the creator the right to set the boundaries to make his intentions clear. Only after that a piece can be misused :)

I love Barbers song Now have I fed (for lyrics see http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=18577). There is a quotation of a verse of the lord prayer. But not in the regular pious way, but almost cynical. I think it is the re-use (or even misuse) of something known that makes the profound impression of really someone in dispair. But before that the 'regular intentions' (a devout prayer) needs to be clear.

So I agree with nikolas. And after a while, when the composer is dead (and apparently famous), people can do with it, whatever they like

This is kind of irrelevant in the long run. If you're so popular people will want to use your music and you deny it, it'll just copied (or used anyway, as most of us aren't keen on fighting legal battles or, worse, we can't KNOW of many of the possible infringements as they're on someone's 5 subscriber youtube channel.) If you can even stop people from using your music or sharing it, that is.

We don't live in a time where any of this matters anymore. If your music is out there, it's out of your hands and whatever happens to it, happens. If you can't accept this, then you better never release any music (or why even bother composing as it could all potentially leak out into the wild!?)

The only way to ensure control over your music is to not share it with anyone, so it is with culture in general (or as said previously, just don't bother composing if you care that much.)

This is kind of irrelevant in the long run. If you're so popular people will want to use your music and you deny it, it'll just copied (or used anyway, as most of us aren't keen on fighting legal battles or, worse, we can't KNOW of many of the possible infringements as they're on someone's 5 subscriber youtube channel.) If you can even stop people from using your music or sharing it, that is.

We don't live in a time where any of this matters anymore. If your music is out there, it's out of your hands and whatever happens to it, happens. If you can't accept this, then you better never release any music (or why even bother composing as it could all potentially leak out into the wild!?)

The only way to ensure control over your music is to not share it with anyone, so it is with culture in general (or as said previously, just don't bother composing if you care that much.)

This. Why go to such absurd lengths to control what others do with your work? Once it's out there, those who consume it live and breath what we've made. There's no sense in taking that away from others. Music is a responsive/reactive medium, and reactions will vary from one person to the next. If someone sees this work you've slaved away over as a form of expression you never intended, well, that's music baby!

That's all well and good, but would it be correct that the rightful owner, as determined by law and precedent, be compensated for creating that great work?

This. Why go to such absurd lengths to control what others do with your work? Once it's out there, those who consume it live and breath what we've made. There's no sense in taking that away from others. Music is a responsive/reactive medium, and reactions will vary from one person to the next. If someone sees this work you've slaved away over as a form of expression you never intended, well, that's music baby!

You realize you just said the same thing SSC said but in a more compact manner? I'm gasping to see the two of you actually agree on something.... I think I'm having a heart attack!

Copyright is the legal right to control the expression of a specific idea.

It seems to me that there are three reasons people concern themselves with copyright: 1) acknowledgment, 2) association, and 3) money.

1) People generally want acknowledgment for the things they accomplish. They want recognition. Praise. They want to feel like they are unique and not just an atom in a speck of dust that's tossed around in a glorified vacuum. And in modern societies what else do you have if not some accolades to display on a piece of paper called a resume?

2) Association is what Nikolas is talking about. A music composition you wrote for your dying mother gets picked up by Ron Jeremy and used in Lesbian Ho'Down at the Bunnyranch 2. My first question is, why would something written for your dying mother fit in a porno? Either this porno has a killer plot or you REALLY love your mom. My second question is, why does this bother you? Is it because you're still sensitive about your parent's passing, or is it because you're worried about how others will perceive you if you become associated with something as socially stigmatic as porn? People like to control how their creations are used because they are afraid of whiplash. But more importantly, they need...

3) Money. We've set up a lifestyle that requires money for survival, and when copyright laws allow you to collect royalties and create fees for the use of your music then that is a huge incentive to care about copyright. Of course most of us will never make much from royalties or from selling our music, so we teach, perform, do odd jobs... And grumble at copyright laws that seem more limiting than useful to the average artist.

First of all, something rather public and personal.

Dear Shaun decided to lock the other thread, and call me a troll. I find this rather disturbing for a number of reasons:

a. He abused his powers as a mod, in order to stop a discussion take its course. I've been a mod here long before AntiA(tonality) was ever and also a member here for longer than he has. I hope that I have offered quite a lot, and not being called a troll.

b. Most importantly when the thread in question was started, I replied in a somewhat legal manner (as much as my knowledge allowed), and to the direct point of the OP. Then AntiA came and stated his opposition to ownership in general, which is what I pointed out.

c. Based on the negative points that AntiAs posts got in that thread, I'm safely assume that I wasn't the one causing trouble, but he was.

d. moreover, I also stated that I started this thread, exactly to stop the other from going completely bonkers. Yet it was locked (and it was locked way after this one was created).

___________________________

Now, on this thread.

The example was a competely silly one for a number of reasons. Nobody in his sane minds would put such a music in porn, especially knowing the legal troubles they would have, and the general sympathy that the composer would get...

Then, as far as I know, copyright doesn't work exactly that. We (perhaps)'d like for it to work this way, but it actually doesn't: If I sell you a score of mine, I can't control how you perform it, or post it on youtube (actually I could possibly control you not posting on youtube, but it would be insane to do so, stupid and close minded).

In every possible sense, it's impossible to control music after it leaves our computers, or drawers, or heads, or whatever. The point is that we still would like to feel it's ours somehow. For the exact reasons that the above posts mentions. Fame, control and money.

The morality of the issue hasn't changed all that much really over the years, despite the help of technology. The mere fact that we now can share anything we want with others, doesn't mean that we should just like that. It means that we should reevaluate the law of copyright (plenty of things there that I disagree with), and also the way that society works, or we'd like it to work.

An example: It's actually illegal to grab a CD you bought, and make it into an mp3 for your ipod. It is, I've checked and also contacted a number of different record companies, all of whom came back with the same reply: "It IS illegal, but the government (UK) is trying to find alternatives to that. In the meantime we're not in the business of chassing down valued customers like you, nor stop anyone from doing something which will help them enjoy the music we offer. So go ahead". (slighty paraphrased).

I'm not saying that the laws of copyright shouldn't change (especially that obnoxious 50-70 years after the death of the composer... Completely silly and awful!), but it shouldn't be abolished like Antia, seems to suggest (no ownership).

It's a combination of different elements that need copyright:

I need to make a living, but also practice music as much as possible. In order to do that I need to earn my living off music. If I can't earn a living off music, can't get acknoledgement from my works, and can't control anything then why do it?

In a silly paradigm: If, antia, someone took your works in this very forum and twisted them around, making you look like a fool, or other... What would be the problem, if you can't claim ownership of your own words? Or even worst, what if someone put words in your mouth? What then? ;)

Copyright can only work if there's a way to enforce it.

As per the mp3 example, we are ALL copyright criminals in one way or another right now. But honestly, go read Laurence Lessig, since anything I say is going to be just repeating what he said. No ownership is a stupid concept, but the problem is ownership doesn't (shouldn't) allow you to stop people from using your stuff unless you hunt them down (if you are even aware of them.) Ideally something like CC would solve things greatly, since recognition and commercial rights are handled there, but the copying of the material is left free.

Sharing I think is ultimately very important and here's a quote that sums it up from here:

http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/17/history-of-copyright-part-7-hijacked-by-pfizer/

File sharing is not just a private matter. It’s a matter of global economic dominance, and always has been. Let’s keep sharing and move that power from the monopolists to the people. Teach everybody to share culture, and the people will win against the constrainers of liberties, just as happened at the start of this series, when people learned to read for themselves and toppled the Catholic Church.

File sharing of course here applies to the free exchange of music as well, as I said in my other post.

File sharing of course here applies to the free exchange of music as well, as I said in my other post.

I don't consider file sharing to be a bad thing at all. I've probably bought more albums after receiving/downloading a song first to sample. Some of my favorite bands were discovered this way. I always keep in mind, as well, that someone paid to get the song to distribute - so the artist did get reimbursed for it all the same.

I don't consider file sharing to be a bad thing at all. I've probably bought more albums after receiving/downloading a song first to sample. Some of my favorite bands were discovered this way. I always keep in mind, as well, that someone paid to get the song to distribute - so the artist did get reimbursed for it all the same.

I fully agree with that sentiment with one tiny detail in mind though.

The idea of marketing always includes free samples. Whether it's porn, or a soap, or music. The companies themselves and the marketing directors all know that. Thus they offer free samples in magazines, in radios, in whatever...

And thus, when we are talking about music, there's tv, there's radio and there's the internet. You can preview and actually relisten pretty much anything on myspace/soundcloud/youtube... So why actually go onto something which is VERY reasonable, but still illegal? The only reason is not convinience but to get a tiny bit more: the track on your ipod, etc...

File sharing gets even more complicated because:

1. Usually people who pirate anything will not have bought the product anyhow, so there's a small % of lost potential revenue.

2. In a lot of cases it's not illegal and it's very reasonable! I mean really, as I said earlier, it's illegal to put a CD onto your ipod, but f*ck off... why not? Same goes for a simple mp3 sharing for educational, or preview purposes.

3. At the same time, though there's a huge business behind cracking software and then SELLING it. I have bought music in such a way in the waaaaay past. Same with software.

4. Finally I have a friend who has 400 GBs of music (and was asking how to classify them). Bull... who no earth will listen to THAT much music? He mentioned that he hasn't listened to more than 5% of that!

Where's the line? I can't say but for private use and personal use... Unfortunately while the law can be bent, it can't be broken in the end. And RIAA is doing a heck of a poor job showing that they are understandable about this whole issue... :(

So in the end regardless of who owns what, the bases for me should be that the creator should give permission for all file sharing etc. Honestly if someone asked me I'd be pretty open about this (especially considering the scores I'e posted thus far). On the other hand if someone doesn't ask and goes on distributing my stuff without my permission, I would be pissed (and I do recall a thread about this a couple of years ago and everyone was pretty supportive (including Antia) on this issue... :D How the world turns...)

(and I do recall a thread about this a couple of years ago and everyone was pretty supportive (including Antia) on this issue... :D How the world turns...)

I was never, ever, of that opinion. To me if laws are retarded culture just overruns them (like right now.) That we have an entire generation of copyright "criminals" only points to the outdated nature of those laws.

Even if you don't give permission, people will share your stuff now. The only way to stop this is to destroy the methods, as people have already grown used to it and it's part of the culture. Law or not, ownership or not, if the only way you can exert your rights on your property is by destroying technology, then you've already lost that fight a while ago.

SSC, I wasn't talking about you, thus the "pretty much everyone". Can't find the thread now, but it was about a guy with a website, who took all scores from IMSLP, including works of living composers and put it on his website, and was charging a subscription in order to download it. I can't remember the details, but I do think that AntiA also posted something helpful towards doing something about that... I could be wrong...

Anyhow, how about not sticking to half a sentence but more towards a whole post... I mean you are making me look like a hate technology, which is totally not what I'm talking about here. :(