Why ‘Crowdsourcing Copyright’ Is a Terrible Idea…

It’s been announced that Finland will be the first country in the world to vote on a “crowd-sourced” copyright law, after a recent modification in the country’s constitution that now allows citizens to make legislative proposals. All they need is 50,000 supporters within six months.

finlandcrowdsource1

The Finnish Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with street artist Sampsa, managed to get the required amount of people to sign on for their “Common Sense in Copyright Act” proposal (here in Finnish), with means the Finnish parliament will now vote on it.

Here’s a Google translated document of the Act, but as legalese can be difficult enough to decipher as is, let alone when it’s translated by Google Translate, Torrentfreak has offered a brief description of the proposal:

“decriminalisation of file-sharing, reduced penalties for copyright infringement, increase fair use, ban unfair clauses in recording contracts, and ease the ability for people to make copies of items they already own for backup and time-shifting purposes”.

The one apparent odd one out in that list is the “ban on unfair clauses in recording contracts”. Was that red-herring clause thrown in there in order to prevent artists from speaking out against the rest of the proposal?

And what, specifically, is an “unfair” clause? Record contracts are the result of commercial negotiations involving legal representation of all parties. As with any such negotiation, if the terms are deemed too harsh by either of the parties they can choose not to sign it.

Is the government now going to get involved in business negotiations – but only it concerns creative work?

Some have claimed this “crowd-sourced” road to legislation true democracy in action, but is it really? And, if it is, is it a “democracy” other countries should adopt?

Here are three reasons why they should think twice about it:

1. Do we want laws to be written by people who have no legal experience or deeper understanding of the laws, and the unintended ramifications due to its complexities?

This mimics a suggestion (hopefully, done in jest) by Simon Cowell that citizens should be able to vote on all government proposals in the same way that they vote for X Factor contestants (though, sensibly, the Finnish constitution still requires parliament to do the final vote). Note that a larger percentage of the UK population voted for the latest X Factor winner than the percentage of the Finnish population that have signed on for this proposal.

While governments are tasked with considering how laws affect all citizens, most people tend to only consider how a law will affect them personally. For example, drivers who have never experienced someone they know being the victim of a speeding accident would most likely vote to abolish current speeding restrictions.

2. What are the chances that the 50,000 people who have signed up for this proposal have actually read through the entire proposal?

…and understood the complexities of how copyright works?

Considering how many people sign petitions that oppose any sort of copyright enforcement because it will “break the internet“, the figure is probably pretty low.

3. This isn’t a neutral proposal.

The chairman of the Open Ministry, the organisation that coordinates public proposals, says that this proposal “breaks with an old tradition where lobbyists draft copyright law”. Yet a quick look at the organisation’s website shows that it’s nothing like neutral, as it pleads support to anti-copyright campaigners such as France’s La Quadrature du Net and “Derek Khanna’s camp”.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an organisation sponsored by Google. Just because an organisation calls itself “not for profit” and claims it stands up for consumer rights (as the EFF does) doesn’t mean it’s not lobbying for the corporations that sponsors it (read more here about all the “non-profit” anti-copyright organisations Google and Facebook give money to).

Besides, I’m a consumer and an artist, and they sure don’t stand up for me.

No doubt, a discussion about how copyright enforcement can be reformed to fit the age we live in would be welcomed by most people, including those working in the arts – but it should be a discussion where all those affected, including creators, are at the table.

 

If the Finish government would vote for “The Common Sense in Copyright Act” as is, it would be akin to tech corporate-sponsored anti-copyright lobbyists drawing up our laws to suit their cause, instead of democratically elected members of parliament.

Pioneers of democracy? Hardly.

83 Responses

    • Vsitor
      Vsitor

      pretty much every argument about copyright is as old as copyright itself. there’s nothing new with people wanting to rip off and exploit the creative class.

      for all the talk people being taken advantage of by corporations it’s funny how willing people are to take advantage of and exploit others every opportunity that they can.

      Reply
      • PiratesWinLOL
        PiratesWinLOL

        It is funny how much whining you get, when you suggest that copyright should expire within a reasonable time, so that these lazy music artists will keep working. Just like everyone else.

        I think it might change though, when they actually get used to a productive lifestyle. Hard work is one of the most important virtues for a healthy man.

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          I don’t really think you have the right to call a musician lazy. Writing, recording and especially touring all take a lot of grueling work and long hours.
          There are sooo many musicians that work way harder than the average office worker, especially the ones who have to have a regular job on the side for whatever reason.
          And at the end of the day music is a product; like the internet you use or the coffe you drink. No matter how rich or poor it makes them I still think they deserve to be paid for the music they put out. I have not met a whole lot of lazy musicians, at least not ones worth being called musicians.

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “I have not met a whole lot of lazy musicians”
            While I’m sure most of us have met quite a few lazy pirates…

      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “Why Democracy Is A Terrible Idea.”
        Ah, you think a 1% mob is entitled to rewrite the laws?
        That would be democracy in your eyes, yes? 🙂

        Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “It would be like 300,000 or a small city in the US. Sounds significant to me.”
            It does?
            So you actually want a 1% mob to rule the world.
            What’s wrong with democratic elections, in your opinion?

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Do you support the music industry sending Gestapo-like copyright enforcement police with assault rifles and granades door to door to break all the stuff in people’s houses?
            Do you support militarized copyright enforcers putting a loaded and ready to kill assault rifle directly against the skull of a 10 year old girl because they had a unconfirmed report that her Winne the Poo laptop was used to download a single album?
            If you do, you don’t have to even change the law. Just support the copyright system in Finland as it currently is!

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Do you support the music industry sending Gestapo-like copyright enforcement police with assault rifles and granades door to door to break all the stuff in people’s houses?”
            I think we have Mr. Falkvinge on the line, yes? 🙂

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            No… they didn’t. No one is going to hold a gun to someone’s head for downloading one album.

          • Everyman
            Everyman

            “Do you support the music industry sending Gestapo-like copyright enforcement police with assault rifles and granades door to door to break all the stuff in people’s houses?”

            The frequency and content of your “Visitor”‘s postings suggests he has forgotten his medication today.

  1. Visitor
    Visitor

    Why don’t you crowdsource your own law to make copyright stricter, then? I’m an artist and I’m sick and tired of our current copyright laws. I could make more money if they were gone than I’m making now with them in existence.

    Reply
    • James
      James

      I could make more money if they were gone than I’m making now with them in existence.
      How? If you feel that copyright is not helping you, you can simply choose not to enforce it; you can actively give your work away; or you can release under one of the limited Creative Commons licenses instead.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “How? If you feel that copyright is not helping you, you can simply choose not to enforce it; you can actively give your work away”
        He probably thinks he could make more money if he were allowed to steal other people’s songs, instead on inventing some of his own.
        Which leads us to the obvious reason why copyright is such a huge success:
        Nobody would ever care to invent or create a thing without it.

        Reply
        • Dirty Kuffar
          Dirty Kuffar

          The Grey Album, Paul’s Boutique, Girl Talks albums etc. etc. is objectively much better than the usual top 20 filth, the music industry pollute the world with.
          The current copyright model is a failure, and like it is the case with for example the medical industry, the copyright should expire after 10 years from the day of release. This would also encourage lazy artists to create something new, which is obviously a good thing. It works great to promote invention and creativity in other sectors and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be used for music.

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “The current copyright model is a failure”
            That is, of course, rubbish. But the strange thing is that you almost raise a valid point here:
            “like it is the case with for example the medical industry, the copyright should expire after 10 years from the day of release”
            You can forget about 10 years, but life + 70 could be discussed.
            My favorite example: Is it helpful to anybody that you have to ask Chuck Berry’s grand grand grand children for permission if you wish to use material similar to Beach Boys’ Surfin’ USA until at least 2083?

          • Mr. West Is In the Building
            Mr. West Is In the Building

            So much material can’t be legally released because of onerous copyright. Look at Baauer: he started a meme and mini revolution online, now everyone’s out of the woodwork suing him for obscure samples.

          • PiratesWinLOL
            PiratesWinLOL

            It should last exactly the same time, as it is the case with the much larger and much more powerful pharmaceutical industry. I don’t understand how this dwarf is able to get such a deal from the politicians, against the best interest of the people. It is about time that lazyness is discouraged and innovation and creation is encouraged, from these spoiled drama queens. Really, considering the very limited investment that is required, the copyright should be even shorter.

    • steveh
      steveh

      I’m an artist and I’m sick and tired of our current copyright laws. I could make more money if they were gone than I’m making now with them in existence.
      Hey Listen!!! You have to EXPLAIN to us exactly why the “current copyright laws” are causing you a problem as an artist.
      The only possible explanation that we can think of is that you want to STEAL other people’s songs and pretend that they are yours.
      Is that what you mean?
      If it is not what you mean please give us a coherent explanation.
      Otherwise we are going to draw the worst possible conclusions from your rash statement.

      Reply
    • GGG
      GGG

      If this is true you probably don’t actually create anything, just rip off from other people.
      Don’t kid yourself or us by calling yourself an “artist.”

      Reply
  2. john herring
    john herring

    the author has loosely assumed that the crowdsourcing occured at a ‘general level’ which is a bit of a shame
    second, pegging citizens for lambs with a Simon Cowell link shoots the article from could be an interesting debate to tool time
    here is an example where crowdsourcing with proficient citizens did in fact work – Iceland’s constitution. Decent article on crowdsourcing legislation by Dustin Demoss where he ties in the Common Sense Copyright campaign to Iceland’s constitution
    as for the author being an artist and begging for representation in the discussion. in finland, the committee looking after the propsal has offered to open public workshops to discuss precisley your point
    which, to be fair was completely lost in misinformation or disinformation and again a lack of research.
    opening the door for discussion, debate with the public is essential
    what the story additionally lacks is the fact that all copyright laws in finland, the information provided in order to make decisions have a single source in Finland – entertainment lobbyists. Helsinki Sanomat, National paper, went back into archive to find out that no other source of information has ever been provided
    thus making the article counterproductive
    write, please – debate is essential
    fact check and try to not shove a narrow view in the way of a larger debate – let’s say we have plenty of that around here

    Reply
  3. Joonas Pekkanen, Open Ministry
    Joonas Pekkanen, Open Ministry

    The one apparent odd one out in that list is the “ban on unfair clauses in recording contracts”. Was that red-herring clause thrown in there in order to prevent artists from speaking out against the rest of the proposal?
    There’s a recent example of the KidSing contest in Finland, where the participating children in the reality TV show had had to write very unfair contracts in order to participate in the show. Turning over more or less all future rights to the organizers. The clause would also protect the artists and creators with the worst negotiating stituations, freelancers, extras, etc.
    Some have claimed this “crowd-sourced” road to legislation true democracy in action, but is it really? And, if it is, is it a “democracy” other countries should adopt?
    Representative politicians can make proper laws only if the issues have been subjected to sufficient debate and attention in the public sphere. This crowdsourced proposal has already raised the level of public awareness and a lot of discussion in the public. This will aid the parliament.
    The parliament has so far heard ONLY the copyright industry lobbyists whenever changes to the law have been considered. This proposal is an attempt to get both consumer AND artist voice heard in a situation where the industry is focusing on the short term cash flow (and the artist-consumer relationship is suffering).
    Open Ministry – civil society organzation I chair – is focused on helping people and other non-profits in making well prepared proposals to the parliament. The copyright proposal is the most extensively crowdsourced and openly prepared proposal to date. It incorporated the fair compensation clause (similar to what is in use in Germany) based on input from an artist association. We also sent the draft for comments to all the copyright org when it was still in the works.
    We are also involved in a number of other initatives including allowing for same-sex maririages, which also has enough support now to go to parliament.
    Politicians will not take up hard or unfavourable issues unless they are forced to do so. This initiative possibility allows us not only to start the discussion on the copyright issue, same-sex marrieages, but also issues like ending the mandatory conscription in Finland, allowgin euthanasia, separating church and state, etc. All issues that politicians would never take up by themselves.
    @joonaspekkanen

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “The copyright proposal is the most extensively crowdsourced and openly prepared proposal to date.”
      Speaks volumes about your other proposals… 🙂
      Your project is obviously a mad man’s work, but the interesting part is that it is born out of a country that hasn’t been able to produce any internationally significant art since Sibelius. And the best thing about Sibelius is the software named after him.
      Now, compare that to the country that gave us the best writer and the greatest bands in the world, ever: The UK!
      The Brits have been haunted by organized copyright crime like the rest of the world throughout the past decade.
      But they know the value of copyright better than anyone so they have introduced an extremely impressing range of new anti-piracy measures over the past few weeks and months.
      If I were you, I’d take a close look at their music sales figures for 2013 and 2014 before I trashed the fundament of human creativity, Copyright Law.

      Reply
    • Chris
      Chris

      “There’s a recent example of the KidSing contest in Finland, where the participating children in the reality TV show had had to write very unfair contracts in order to participate in the show.” Well then don’t sign them then and don’t participate in the show.You pirates are always saying that your community supports artists and gives them lots of promotion – are to come on and prove it then? Take a child artist who wanted to take part in KidSong and make them famous through your ‘promotion’.Let’s see if your claims are correct or, as I suspect, you are trying to be able to download other people’s work for free because you think you have some unalienable right to take peoples work without compensation

      Reply
  4. Visitor
    Visitor

    “All they need is 50,000 supporters within six months.”
    lol, you can make 50,000 crackpots support anything.

    Reply
    • jeremy cohen
      jeremy cohen

      not when it’s 1 out of every 100 person in a country as small as Finland
      perhaps a hundred or more initiatives proposed – 3 “cracked the pot”
      but, sure, it makes sense to detract from the topic that criminalizing 1 download from a peer-to-peer network is absurd
      and that lobbyists putting legislation into play that wedge a gap between artists and consumers is not self serving
      question the process, we all should, but the incentives of industry lobbyists are well tracked in the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and its direct influence on the EU Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC
      here is a more relevant question in the way of supporting recording artists – if there was a version of file sharing where artists could receive funding directly from consumers – would you use it?
      because, unfortunately while the entertainment industry is trying to whipe file sharing as a medium from the dictionary – goverments have been lining up to receive marching orders from them
      file sharing = electric shock
      why? because the industry will have to renegotiate their relationship with ALL artist communities? because they will need to redesign their business model?
      exactly who’s problem is that? a politicians?
      when the millions have been extracted from people who have downloaded illegally – did the awards trickle down to the artists themselves?
      because they have not
      there is so much information available to us, and it is so apparent that the discussion needs to take place and yet we end up with “crack pot” and articles that headline “why this is a bad idea”
      in 2013 we should afford the time to research the topic and ensure the debate remains as open as possible
      industry has had it’s say and way – and although, they too should be invited to discuss – as they were clearly invited to the discussion as Mr Pekkanen above states – they should not consume the conversation
      One would hope any artist (past included) could at least honor the concept of being on equal ground when shaping the laws that effect them

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “not when it’s 1 out of every 100 person in a country as small as Finland”
        Nonsens, more than 1% of any given population are stark raving mad.
        This is as good a proof as any…

        Reply
  5. quietrevolution
    quietrevolution

    Helienne
    On point one, having worked in a provincial legislature here in Canada – and having had an opportunity to work in our federal parliment, I can assure you that *most* elected officials are nothing special, have little knowledge of areas regarding the laws they pass and are certainly not experts in law.
    This is also seen repeatedly in news reports from around the world in comments and lack of awareness expressed by politicians on any number of issues. (Rape/abortion comments from U.S. politicians are first to mind right now).

    On point two, and related to point one, I can further assure you that the majority of politicians do not themselves read full bills. Often there’s no need to, they’re voting with their party, so why waste their time. Staff highlight key points/issues and that’s that. This adds to the above lack of understanding/awareness.

    Something else you may wish to consider: Research shows that given the choice between say 20 “experts” (whatever the topic/field) and 20 lay people – you’re likely to get better answers to the problems posed from the lay people than the experts.

    In short it is because the experts “know” what should and shouldn’t work, thus limiting the ideas they will consider. Lay people free of such restrainants on the other hand don’t know they shouldn’t consider X, and thus end up finding new solutions.
    No reason to think such thinking wouldn’t work with legislation.

    Best.

    Reply
    • hippydog
      hippydog

      @ quietrevolution
      EXCELLENT POST!
      huge ditto on what he said..
      Democracy is far from perfect, and very messy.. but its still better then the alternatives..

      Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “In short it is because the experts “know” what should and shouldn’t work, thus limiting the ideas they will consider. Lay people free of such restrainants on the other hand don’t know they shouldn’t consider X, and thus end up finding new solutions”
      lol, more power to the morons — NOW!

      Reply
    • James
      James

      Something else you may wish to consider: Research shows that given the choice between say 20 “experts” (whatever the topic/field) and 20 lay people – you’re likely to get better answers to the problems posed from the lay people than the experts.
      Well, then I hope you never have to undergo major surgery.

      Reply
      • aquietrevolution
        aquietrevolution

        Hey James, has nothing to do with pracitical application of the knowledge.
        In the example noted, the enginners are still the people with the training/skills required to implement the idea. But it was that same training that limited the scope of solutions they would even consider in the first place giving the lay people the edge in idea creation.

        Reply
  6. Visitor
    Visitor

    100 % agree. This is also yet another proof of the sorry fact that reasonable and fact based argumentation about copyright is nowadays particularly difficult… and of the power of the big tech industry’s underhand lobbying.
    The proposal was sold on the basis half-truths (or outright lies) about the current state of copyright and the effect of the current legislation (not that most of the signatories probably care too much about that). For instance, the main selling point is to decriminalise the dowloading of individual songs from illegal sources. The thing is, downloading is not criminalised under the Finnish legislation to begin with!
    The project is then sugarcoated with a proposal to introduce a ban on “unreasonable artists’ contracts”. The idea being to win over a few gullible artists. What EFF and other promoting the proposal have however not actively or openly advertised is that the proposal would also free services like TPB, KAT, Isohunt, Groovshark — that do not directly reproduce copyrighted material — from copyright liability. This of course would ensure continued traffic and ad revenue for Google etc, and allow those services to make money out of the very same artists’ works without paying them a penny or cent or whatever.
    I personally think that copyright is good but would accept if after fair and open policy debate copyright was abolished or substantially weakened (as proposed here). What I object to however is this type of underhand lobbying by proxies and the use of unsubstantiated arguments.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “I personally think that copyright is good but would accept if after fair and open policy debate copyright was abolished or substantially weakened”
      That’ll never happen. 🙂
      Intellectual Property is the currency of the 21. Century.
      Without copyright, modern economy would collapse faster than you can say Black Tuesday.

      Reply
    • Sami Sundell
      Sami Sundell

      “For instance, the main selling point is to decriminalise the dowloading of individual songs from illegal sources. The thing is, downloading is not criminalised under the Finnish legislation to begin with!”
      Downloading as such isn’t, but downloading from an illegal source is – the law regarding that changed in 2006 (change 821/2005). It’s actually mentioned in the proposal.
      The TorrentFreak translation is weak and seems to aim for sensational rather than accuracy. The proposal doesn’t “decriminalize fliesharing”, but it would limit the maximum sentence for grassroot downloaders – for example, to avoid such situations as search and seizure, potentially for a single download. For larger scale distributors those options would still be available.
      It’s nice to see that people are focusing on that (largely misrepresented) part rather than, for example, the part about backups. Of course it’s great for creators to sell multiple copies of the same work for one customer, but that’s where the “fair” part comes in.
      And of course it’s good to remember that Finland isn’t actually crowdsourcing copyright law. Few people drafted a proposal, a good number of people supported it, and next it’s up to legislators to ponder what to do about it. It’s pretty much guaranteed that the proposal as such won’t be part of our future copyright law, but at least it gives voice to concerns that a lot of people are having about the current situation.

      Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “The public having influence on their government’s legal system? What is the world coming to?”
      So you don’t like democratic elections?
      It’s so much cooler to let a 1% mob rule the world?
      Like it did with SOPA, PIPA & ACTA?

      Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          Fair enough, you do believe that 1% should rule the world.
          But why?
          What’s wrong with democratic elections, in your opinion?

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Nice deflect! Again I ask, if getting 1% of the population to support something is so easy, why have you failed to do so? Maybe nazi-like copyright enforcement is not as popular as you think it is?

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Guess, we just disagree here: You think it’s relevant what a 1% mob wants.
            I don’t.
            Why don’t you respect democratic elections?

  7. shkg
    shkg

    Yes, copyright is awful, the 20th century was a real creative wasteland. Can’t wait until it’s gone and we can really get things moving!

    Reply
  8. jw
    jw

    The one apparent odd one out in that list is the “ban on unfair clauses in recording contracts”. Was that red-herring clause thrown in there in order to prevent artists from speaking out against the rest of the proposal? And what, specifically, is an “unfair” clause? Record contracts are the result of commercial negotiations involving legal representation of all parties. As with any such negotiation, if the terms are deemed too harsh by either of the parties they can choose not to sign it.
    This is ridiculous. How many artists without proper representation have unknowingly signed unfair contracts? How many artists have taken their label to court & gotten out of their contract? Or gotten their songs back? Have you ever SEEN the contracts artists sign after being chosen to participate in something like American Idol?
    Record labels are caught with their hand in the cookie jar on a regular basis… I don’t know the contents of this bill, but if there are people who want to protect young artists from getting screwed, more power to them.
    Not everyone has been around the block as many times as you, Helienne.

    Reply
    • hippydog
      hippydog

      On a somewhat related sidenote,
      I was watching Russel Brand on his new TV show last night, and he had lawyer looking at “America’s Got Talent”‘s contract VS the International human rights treaties.. LOL
      I guess the “A. got T” contract broke the standard human rights agreement in more then 10 places !!
      to be a contestant they agree that the show may publish ANY information about them, even if its untrue.. The show can put camera’s in places where a person would have reasonable expectations of privacy (IE: even a bathroom) .. and it didnt get any better as they went along (i dont remember ALL the details but it was a REALLY BAD contract)
      and thousands of people were signing this contract (and even if they didnt make it on the show, were still held by it)
      so ..
      to make a long story longer 😉
      after seeing that..
      maybe its not such a “red herring” after all *shock*

      Reply
  9. Paul Resnikoff
    Paul Resnikoff

    Derek Khanna Responds:
    “Hi,
    I am writing about your recent article “Why Crowdsourcing. . .”
    Of course your staff is entitled to disagree, vehemently disagree, with my work on copyright issues, but I have never been anti-copyright. In all my work I go out of my way to say that I am PRO-copyright, and pro-artist.
    You can certainly criticize my opinion and my arguments, but I request that you change your article to reflect the fact that I routinely say that I support copyright and I am strongly against piracy.
    My perspective, is that based upon US tradition and the US Constitution, Copyright has to eventually expire. I believe that we can have a system that fairly and substantially compensates content creators, while allowing for new content creation of mash-ups and remixes too. And I believe that this system can co-exist with innovation, such that the VCR, iPod and DVR were technologies almost sued out of existences (the first iPod and DVR did go bankrupt from litigation).
    You can call this perspective whatever you like, radical, American, etc., but it is distinctively not anti-copyright.
    I don’t actually know the full perspective of France’s La Quadrature du Net – I’ve never met them or read their stuff, they could possibly hold those views, but I don’t.
    Here is an article that I wrote recently that explains my opinion succinctly.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/21/hollywood-should-not-decide-our-copyright-laws/
    Sincerely,
    Derek Khanna

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “I support copyright”
      Derek Khanna
      and:
      “Copyright has to eventually expire”
      Derek Khanna
      lol…

      Reply
      • PiratesWinLOL
        PiratesWinLOL

        How do you like that for other industries too? Or does it only apply to your very special snowflakes, which is the lazy and spoiled music artists? I would love to hit you with a bill of perhaps 20.000 dollars, if you get a deadly infection, eventhough the required medication was introduced 50 years ago. In this case your moronic theory about people wanting to pay anything, actually works.

        It is really for a change, and that lazyness is discourage and hard work and creativity is encouraged. We don’t need spoiled and lazy artists in a dynamic society. It has come to my awareness, that some are actually so lazy that they don’t even do live performances. It is outright disgusting.

        Reply
    • Yves Villeneuve
      Yves Villeneuve

      Question: do you think laws should be change to reduce or eliminate compensation of music that is re-mixed or sampled in a mash up or other?
      You do realize that re-mixes, sampling, mash-ups and covers dilute the success of the originals. A stream of a mash-up takes the place of a stream of the originals.
      I do not support anyone remixing, sampling, mashing and covering my music for the above reason and you or anyone else are expected to respect my wishes.

      Reply
  10. IPADHARMONY*(TM)
    IPADHARMONY*(TM)

    We shall be putting away 10% of download fee, to a “Trust” with funds “held in ESCROW” for future payment to any infringed Copyright by others, paid quarterly in arreas, as per normal royalties, when a specified still to be agreed number has been reached. Our Apps will allow all People to experiment with sound concepts, create private files or share their creations accross all Social Networks, by releasing a 30 second edit to be sold as a Ring-Tone. The creator gets $0.20 for their contribution, and if it violates another Copyright, that owner gets $0.099 paid quarterly in arreas for each upload by others. Refer to Temporary Web Links here:[ http://about.me/paul_callanan ]. The U.K. came up with a model back in 2008, with 6.5% for Downloads, 6.25% e-books & 5.75% for streaming. Any way we will be putting away 10% for the future claims of Labels and Indies. Have a good Day and be creative.

    Reply
    • Helienne
      Helienne

      You’ve peaked my interest. I’m weary of clicking on links provided by unknown sources (this is how the Guardian’s email system got hacked, allegedly by the Syrian army). Perhaps you could contact me via DMN or Twitter?

      Reply
    • Everyman
      Everyman

      “The Theory of Crowd Capital”

      It’s interesting but completely irrelevant to the efficacy of crowdsourced legislation.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *