Very interesting, Richard. The petition statement does contain some language that I would think could get the idea some press. Have you received any attention from this? Have any colleagues expressed support for this?
This may seem odd, but I could see your idea as an topic for the G4 television program, Attack of the Show. They do a segment called "The Loop" where such topics are discussed.
There have been articles about this in the Christian Science Monitor and on the Huffington Post blog. Plus numerous repostings. I don't know the program you are referring to, but count me in if you have an in there.
Post by Leigh Harrison on Jun 23, 2009 0:44:56 GMT -5
I just read about your "Day of Sharing" and was astounded! I had thought of something similar, but untimately discarded the idea, choosing to take a more moderate approach to my protest against the devaluation of intellectual property & infringement of copyright. Nevertheless, I think you might be interested to read the Open Letter which I posted to all my friends and fellow musicians, writers, and artists. (To read it, see the "Upcoming CD" page of my website http://www.leighharrison.com).
I applaud your taking the idea of retributive theft a lot further than I did, and -- while I feel I still must make my personal protest a civil one, I'd like to contribute towards your defense fund, even if (in my impoverished state) I can only contribute a few dollars. How do I go about it?
With the utmost delight in your ingenuity and the deepest respect for your ballsy action, I remain, your comrade in arms. Warmest regards, from Leigh Harrison
Post by kimo Williams on Jul 22, 2009 16:01:59 GMT -5
First, The United States of America has enacted Laws to protect us all in many ways. Here is an excerpt from one of those laws:
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
And: § 501. Infringement of copyright
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
Technology is about to engulf us all. YouTube as an example of a technology that has allows the unauthorized sharing of an artist as he/she performs for the public. The artist is compensated for that performance (usually). Any rebroadcast of that initial performance is an infringement and against the law on many levels.
The Day of Sharing, from my perspective, is nothing more than a way to reeducate (indoctrinate) a generation that in so many ways have grown up in a world that values the marketed facade over the substantive underlining aesthetic of our cultural artistic foundation. We can no longer just stand by and watch, or wait for the government to do something. We have to do something and it must be drastic (revolution) or we will find ourselves with no sense of value beyond what the media tells us. Please believe me that this lost of value as it connects to art will and does cross in to so many other areas of our societal lives. Professional and personal morals are directly related to the perception that it is OK to infringe on the rights of others (as long as you don't get caught). We as a culture are losing the battle with the responsibility to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing.
This day of sharing may not impact the cultural infrastructure but at least something is being done to make the point of “rights” relevant.....
If an ISP monetization model was established, how deep into the chain would the funds be shared? Would the artist, publishing rights holder and distributor be the only recipients of all revenue? Would this model break down the revenue to include session musicians, producers, engineers and the many others who contribute to the production of the material?
Just a thought I had after watching the Riz Khan interview.
The short answer to your last question is yes. The long answer is a bit more complicated. Traditionally session players and engineers are paid up front in full for their time and do not participate in the royalty stream anyway. There are some exceptions to this - mixing engineers will often negotiate for a percentage point or two of retail sales if their resume warrants it and session players get a very small piece of the pie via their union contracts (if they are union members and if the project is filed thru the union). In any case they would benefit massively simply because there is more money in the coffers of the creators and rights holders - these days the budgets of albums have plummeted to the point where no one is making a decent dollar except the very best selling acts. Even back in the Boingo days - almost 30 years ago - a typical recording budget for a newly signed and unproven band was around $100,000 - $150,000. That would pay for studio time, engineers, session players, techs, rentals, and a few lunches. Now the typical budget is more like $25,000 - $50,000. Session players simply aren't being hired, engineers are being paid a fraction of their former fees and studios are going under as artists are forced to record in their spare bedrooms. Obviously everybody suffers. Producers usually get both an upfront fee and a piece of the profits - that would probably continue. Now nobody cares about the back end because by and large there isn't one.
Anyway, long answer there and that is only scratching the surface. Monetizing music would only be the start - ALL intellectual property would have to be paid for, not just music. Photos, movies, books, poetry, paintings, games, on and on. It is daunting but quite doable. And necessary if we are to continue to enjoy the fruits of creators.
Thanks for the follow-up, Richard. Here is what I was thinking - If additional, or primary revenue was generated by the ISP model, I would think all parties involved in the creation of art should benefit. How you described the traditional ways makes sense in that structure.
If we are concerned with the livelihood of artists and I would guess the talent that is used in the creation of art, then the old ways of paying talent, like session musicians, shouldn't be used for the new monetization model. That is...in my opinion.