Re: [microsound] industry loses big

[apayne1 <apayne1@xxxxxxxx>]

I've been lurking for several weeks, and since intellectual property in the 
digital age is a portion of my field of study (tech and politics), I just have 
to jump in.

Jonathan Hughes wrote to the list: "Ultimately, the free-for-all downloading 
of music ultimately cheapens the music (and not just on monetary level). 
Instead of being something that's actively sought out, enjoyed, and valued, it 
just becomes an item to collect."  I would argue that this is not a function 
of such "free-for-all downloading," but rather a mentality cultivated by the 
record industry since its inception, and one furthered in our own niche of 
DJ/urban/electronic music.

Music has been a physical commidity since the first days of mass-produced 
vinyl records, and collecting indivudal songs has long been the target of the 
"single" format, either on vinyl, tape, or CD.  Physical ownership or not, 
people feel connected to particular songs, and collect them as much in media 
as in their minds.  Today's urban slang demonstrates this relationship: songs 
are a "joint," slang also used to refer to a phyiscal location ("that joint 
was jumpin'").  The DJs of this urban culture are perhaps the best 
demontration of the commidifaction of music, carrying around their multitudes 
of records, selecting that one perfect song that they "own," sharing this 
treasure with their listeners.  There's nothing particularly negative about 
collecting music, and it's a phenomenon that's existed far beyond the 
intangible media of the digital age.

But, this strays from the central issue of copyright, and furthermore its 
relevance to this subset of electronic music.  It's my personal feeling that, 
while electronic music has thrived on practices like sampling and remixing 
that fly in the face of traditional copyright publishing models, the freedom 
to liscence music (or any other work) as the author sees fit is essential.  
Take, for example, Mr Cascone's current collaborative project revolving around 
Wigout and its Max/MSP clone.  In the initial phases of collaboration, sharing 
both audio and code under an open liscence, or indeed with the unwritten 
understanding that both sound and code flows free, is essential for the 
collaboration to succeed.  But, once complete with contributions from a 
variety of musicians, a copyrighted _physical_ release could potentially 
benefit all contributors, even if some artists decide to retain open liscences 
for their contributions.

It's not a matter of choosing to make money or not.  Folks have demonstrated 
success with both copywritten, open-liscensed, and entirely unliscened works 
in various fields of publishing.  Their freedom to choose a liscense is 
essential to a healthy economic and intellectual marketplace.  So, the debate 
over the Eldritch vs Ashcroft decision is not one of abolishing copyright for 
the good of the public domain,  but one of looking to the past to recognize 
the Contitutional framers' intent of an intellectual property system that 
benefited the publisher for her (and not her offspring or estate's) lifetime 
while ensuring that beneficial works would be readily available to the public 
in a timely fashion.  The system worked originally, and has only failed its 
goals today due to these unnecessary and, some argue, un-Constitutional 
extensions.  This debate also calls for looking to the future, where copyright 
and liscense are an open choice for content creators, facilitated by network 
technology.

No one on either of the extremes of this debate will ever be satisfied.  I 
know, as I've seen them arguing up-close-and-personal in a Commerce Department 
meeting in my hometown of Washington, DC.  Big Media is starting to understand 
that complete control of content in unrealistic, but that voice of reason is a 
minority in the movie and record industry.  The "intellectual property 
abolitionists," however, make unusuable arguments that "intellectual property 
is a lingustic construction; you can't sell ideas."  Well, people have been 
for hundreds of years in varying civilizations and in varying fasions.  It's 
time to realize that a balance is in order, and I believe that balance lies in 
copyright terms that extend only as long as the author's lifetime (perhaps 10 
or 20 years longer), and legally respected alternatives to copyright.

Electronic music is a realm of forward-thinking.  So think forward when you 
liscense your works, and realize the benefits of balance.  I reccomend looking 
to http://www.creativecommons.org for alternative liscensing schemes that 
dovetail with modern copyright law.  Please, respect people's right to 
liscense as they see fit, as long as they respect your right to fair use.

_______________________________________________________
Alexander Payne     | http://www.al3x.net

------------------------------