You are here

Labour party policy on music

Advice on everything from getting your music heard to setting up a label and royalties.

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby CS70 » Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:05 pm

blinddrew wrote:
CS70 wrote:"fair use" is not the right of producing copies of a work because your purchased one physical instance.
The thing is 'fair use' isn't particularly well defined. In some cases, for educational reasons perhaps, the example you give could be classed as fair use. But you'd have to go to court to argue it if you were challenged by the rights holder.
In the UK we have 'fair dealing' which is even less clear.

Well insofar I understand, the letter of "fair use" is not defined intentionally, but the idea is relatively clear and a judgement can be most often made. Of course, that makes it a little more prone to litigation than other concepts, but people litigates also when the letter of the law is extremely clear. It's a tactic.

Fair use is "limited and transformative purpose". To cite someone's lyrics in reviewing their work for example, or to publish a music excerpt in an analysis paper is in; copying and entire work changing only the fonts is out.

Most fair use of something is actually analysis (from a review to a commentary to news about it) or parody. Some other limitations of copyright may include, for example, stuff like making a braille version of of literature work.

The example that wireman made was quite simple - and if it were litigated, there's no chance it would be judged a fair use, because there's no way it can be considered to be limited or transformative. If one wants a book, he buys a book. If one wants a sheet, he buys a sheet. If one wants both, he buys both.
User avatar
CS70
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2860
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby mac.churchmouse » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:15 am

blinddrew wrote:Personally I'd like to see music re-introduced to the curriculum and suitably prioritised.
+ 1
I reckon all efforts to create respect for artists and their creations in society and law is based on childhood engagement.
Glenn
mac.churchmouse
Poster
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:00 am
Location: Aotearoa/UK/Australia

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby ef37a » Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:58 am

+1 to getting music back into schools.

I would also like to see some action against the "Noise NIMBYs". This is where a long established music venue, often a pub, is told to stop live music or sound proof (which they either cannot afford to do or is not possible) even when said venue has been running for decades and the 'locals' have been perfectly happy with it but a new development does not like the noise.

I had a flyer recently from my local labour candidate and his jib seemed fairly well cut and I intend to write to him soon on a range of issues. Music will now be one of them.

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9460
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:26 am

CS70 wrote:The example that wireman made was quite simple - and if it were litigated, there's no chance it would be judged a fair use, because there's no way it can be considered to be limited or transformative. If one wants a book, he buys a book. If one wants a sheet, he buys a sheet. If one wants both, he buys both.

The confusing aspect here is whether one is simply buying a right to access the intellectual property (the actual words or music, etc), or a specific physical presentation of that intellectual property.

I would suggest that most consumers expect and think they are buying access to the intellectual property alone. Consequently if it is more convenient to them to access that IP in a different form for some practical reason most believe they can legitimately copy it appropriately -- for example by ripping a CD to their phone to listen on the move, or photocopying music from several pages of a book onto a single sheet for easier performance.

In reality the industry protects specific physical presentations of IP and hence the current legal requirement outlined by CS70: "If one wants a book, he buys a book. If one wants a sheet, he buys a sheet. If one wants both, he buys both"

Whether that is sensible and appropriate is the core of that debate... Personally, I think not: I think the more enlightened and reasonable stance given modern technology is that a customer pays for access to the IP content irrespective of current or future personal usage formats. When the Genie has escaped the bottle you can't force it back in! ;-)

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 21790
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby Matt Houghton » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:31 am

I agree that music needs to be brought back into schools. But Heaven help us if it's brought back in the form it was taught in my schools — those lessons nearly put me off music for life. It needs to be done in a way that nurtures children's interest. Not distributing bloody chime bars and triangles to the whole class, giving only rich kids piano, guitar and violin lessons and so on. There are real opportunities to use music, performance and production as part of cross-curricular projects that can do so much for a child's academic and social education...

The word 'culture' crops up a lot, simply because it's a branch of the Dept for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It basically embraces film, music, theatre, opera, ballet... some other things, but mostly those. The problem for the music industry is that historically Britain's music sector has overperformed commercially, so it's rarely seen in government as a problem that needs addressing. And when it does need addressing, they tend to give plenty of weight to opinions of big labels whose interests often conflict with those of others — government is simply not up to speed with the way the industry is now.

Contrast that with film, where there's an obvious government role in bringing inward investment into the country by giving big films tax breaks to film here, and to employ lots of people... and you'll see a lot of DDCMS literature about film. And things theatre, opera and art galleries — expensive things to maintain that are seen as under threat.
Matt Houghton
Frequent Poster
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:00 am
SOS Reviews Editor

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby ef37a » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:32 am

Re "physical" or "intellectual"?

There was a suggestion many years ago that buyers of those incredibly fragile vinyl things should be able to buy a replacement for the production cost alone since they had already paid for the performance?

Owners of stacked ELS systems in 'clean rooms' and with more time/money than sense could keep the things pristine but not the rest of us plebs!

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9460
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby Sam Inglis » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:49 am

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
In reality the industry protects specific physical presentations of IP and hence the current legal requirement outlined by CS70: "If one wants a book, he buys a book. If one wants a sheet, he buys a sheet. If one wants both, he buys both"

Whether that is sensible and appropriate is the core of that debate... Personally, I think not: I think the more enlightened and reasonable stance given modern technology is that a customer pays for access to the IP content irrespective of current or future personal usage formats. When the Genie has escaped the bottle you can't force it back in! ;-)

H

That would cause massive problems for music libraries and publishers of orchestral music, wouldn't it? If I want to put on a performance of a large-scale orchestral work that is still in copyright, I need to hire enough copies for all the musicians in my ensemble. I can't just hire a single copy of each part and photocopy them, and rightly so.
Sam Inglis
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2328
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 1:00 am

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby CS70 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:11 am

Hugh Robjohns wrote:
The confusing aspect here is ..

Exactly.

Whether that is sensible and appropriate is the core of that debate... Personally, I think not: I think the more enlightened and reasonable stance given modern technology is that a customer pays for access to the IP content irrespective of current or future personal usage formats. When the Genie has escaped the bottle you can't force it back in! ;-)

Yes, I very much agree in principle - it would be more sensible, at least from the user point of view. But it would need to be more expensive for the buyers. The reason is that the cost/pricing structure across most industries where copyright makes sense is set up based on access to individual physical instances. To provide a blanket access makes that structure totally off - as the music makers have experienced in these years.

It's not a case that "new" services, based on the internet, have already baked in the blanket access in their pricing (and are much harder, as a consequence, to be made profitable by virtue of content alone).

It's a bit like renting a car and then expecting to have it for unlimited time.. there's a disconnect between what is on offer and what the customer understands is on offer.

The misunderstanding is undoubtedly helped by the fact that it's in the customer advantage to misunderstand :), and that so far the customer has been able to misunderstand with no consequences whatsoever.

The whole idea of copyright, however, is that it is the author right to determine how his work is used, sold, modified etc. It seems to me that there's no going around that if the right to determine whether or not a blanket access is given is moved to the consumer, it won't stay with the author and copyright will no longer exist as we know it.
User avatar
CS70
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2860
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby ef37a » Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:18 am

"The whole idea of copyright, however, is that it is the author right to determine how his work is used, sold, modified etc. It seems to me that there's no going around that if the right to determine whether or not a blanket access is given is moved to the consumer, it won't stay with the author and copyright will no longer exist as we know it."

Hmm, yes CS and then there's Behringer.

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9460
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby ManFromGlass » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:59 pm

and then there is the art world. A painter sells a picture and the owner can do anything they want with it.
And isn't Mickey Mouse entering the public domain soon? I try and follow this one just to see how Disney Corp can try and subvert copyright to its own ends.
User avatar
ManFromGlass
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1479
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:00 am
Location: In the woods in Canada
 

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby blinddrew » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:33 pm

CS70 wrote:The whole idea of copyright, however, is that it is the author right to determine how his work is used, sold, modified etc.
Well, not quite.
The purpose of copyright is to generate new content, the mechanism is a limited term government granted monopoly. There are other ways or promoting the generation of new content, copyright is not the only tool in the box.
Copyright has always been more of a restriction than a right, it's just that now the world has moved to a situation where that restriction has become impractical to implement, inconsistently applied and morally questionable.
Laws work because people agree that they are appropriate, when people stop thinking they are appropriate they either stop respecting them, or ignore them, or, eventually, get them repealed.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby ef37a » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:59 pm

"Laws work because people agree that they are appropriate, when people stop thinking they are appropriate they either stop respecting them, or ignore them, or, eventually, get them repealed."
Sorry Drew but ^ balderdash. How many pieces of legislation can you point to and say they were enacted because of evidence (as against PPolitical ideology, or predjudice) ?

How many pieces of legislation have been examined by independent, scientific bodies after say a ten year run? How many have been repealed? Very recent evidence shows that people have to kick up an ALLMIGHTY embarrassing stink to get even really, really bad things put right.

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9460
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby CS70 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:28 pm

blinddrew wrote:
CS70 wrote:The whole idea of copyright, however, is that it is the author right to determine how his work is used, sold, modified etc.
Well, not quite.
The purpose of copyright is to generate new content, the mechanism is a limited term government granted monopoly. There are other ways or promoting the generation of new content, copyright is not the only tool in the box.
Copyright has always been more of a restriction than a right, it's just that now the world has moved to a situation where that restriction has become impractical to implement, inconsistently applied and morally questionable.
Laws work because people agree that they are appropriate, when people stop thinking they are appropriate they either stop respecting them, or ignore them, or, eventually, get them repealed.

It's hard to answer to this kind of assertion, because you're just making up your own definition. If we don't agree that there's a common reality, we're in Trump territory and we start discussing about the size of the inauguration crowd. :D

Google "copyright" and you'll find that all definitions are along the lines I've mentioned: exclusive use and distribution rights to the author. It's not an opinion.

Sure, one of the many implications is a restriction on others. But that's pretty much true for any definition, innit?

When it comes to laws, they work because they're approved by the representative of the people, and enforced by executive and judiciary. It's the democratic process. If you want to change that definition, you have to engage yourself in politics, get elected, draft a bill and get it approved into law. That's how the democratic process works.

Granted, there's more than one silly law - but pretending they don't exist or that they dont say what they say will soon land you in jail... :-)
User avatar
CS70
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2860
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby CS70 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:30 pm

ef37a wrote:How many pieces of legislation have been examined by independent, scientific bodies after say a ten year run? How many have been repealed? Very recent evidence shows that people have to kick up an ALLMIGHTY embarrassing stink to get even really, really bad things put right.

Dave.

It is a well known fact that it is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.

No kidding!
User avatar
CS70
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2860
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby blinddrew » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:37 pm

ef37a wrote:"Laws work because people agree that they are appropriate, when people stop thinking they are appropriate they either stop respecting them, or ignore them, or, eventually, get them repealed."
Sorry Drew but ^ balderdash. How many pieces of legislation can you point to and say they were enacted because of evidence (as against PPolitical ideology, or predjudice) ?

How many pieces of legislation have been examined by independent, scientific bodies after say a ten year run? How many have been repealed? Very recent evidence shows that people have to kick up an ALLMIGHTY embarrassing stink to get even really, really bad things put right.

Dave.
You appear to be arguing against a point i didn't make Dave.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby blinddrew » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:39 pm

CS70 wrote:
blinddrew wrote:
CS70 wrote:The whole idea of copyright, however, is that it is the author right to determine how his work is used, sold, modified etc.
Well, not quite.
The purpose of copyright is to generate new content, the mechanism is a limited term government granted monopoly. There are other ways or promoting the generation of new content, copyright is not the only tool in the box.
Copyright has always been more of a restriction than a right, it's just that now the world has moved to a situation where that restriction has become impractical to implement, inconsistently applied and morally questionable.
Laws work because people agree that they are appropriate, when people stop thinking they are appropriate they either stop respecting them, or ignore them, or, eventually, get them repealed.

It's hard to answer to this kind of assertion, because you're just making up your own definition. If we don't agree that there's a common reality, we're in Trump territory and we start discussing about the size of the inauguration crowd. :D

Google "copyright" and you'll find that all definitions are along the lines I've mentioned: exclusive use and distribution rights to the author. It's not an opinion.

Sure, one of the many implications is a restriction on others. But that's pretty much true for any definition, innit?

When it comes to laws, they work because they're approved by the representative of the people, and enforced by executive and judiciary. It's the democratic process. If you want to change that definition, you have to engage yourself in politics, get elected, draft a bill and get it approved into law. That's how the democratic process works.

Granted, there's more than one silly law - but pretending they don't exist or that they dont say what they say will soon land you in jail... :-)
I'm not talking about the definition of copyright, I'm talking about the purpose - different things. It's there in black and white in the Statute of Anne and the US constitution.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby blinddrew » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:49 pm

Sorry, I've kind of dragged this thread off topic - can we go back to where I asked for a data-driven review of copyright and start again from there please! :D
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby Matt Houghton » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:57 pm

ef37a wrote:How many pieces of legislation can you point to and say they were enacted because of evidence (as against PPolitical ideology, or predjudice) ?

Swathes of them prior to 2010, in particular under the Blair government but also Brown. Yes, there were political *aims* (eg. Reducing child poverty, equality of opportunity for children from all backgrounds), and no, not all such policies worked (government is not like banking or electronics, where more definite data is available, and the outcomes are relatively immediate). But policy was as far as possible based on evidence. That was the whole point of the Cabinet Office's Performance & Innovation Unit and the Centre For Management & Policy Studies. But evidence was drawn also from third party experts and research by, for example, the Kings Fund and the Rowntree Foundation for health and social care policy. As well as Select Committee investigations and other governments. To give but one tiny example, evidence drove the change from waiting list targets to referral and waiting times targets. Another would be the approach to reducing reoffending by ex prisoners. Of course, it wasn't the case for every policy: eg. Recreational drugs classification. And they didn't really do a great deal in some areas -- notably music copyright/piracy etc.

Now, without wishing to get all party political, I'd suggest that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the political *aims* of the main UK parties, the current administration has rather reverted to designing policy on a whim, with departments and Ministers if State operating as independent fiefdoms, either unaware of or uncaring about the impact of their actions on other departments. It saddens me. Whoever people vote for, they should be able to expect thoroughness and competence in their policy making.
Matt Houghton
Frequent Poster
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:00 am
SOS Reviews Editor

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby Matt Houghton » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:09 pm

blinddrew wrote:Sorry, I've kind of dragged this thread off topic - can we go back to where I asked for a data-driven review of copyright and start again from there please! :D

Sorry. Missed this. But yes, absolutely. Let's get back on track.

What we need IMO is a complete review of the rights of artist and other creators in the new digital/streaming world. Current legislation relates to a business model that no longer exists. I can't see any government being able to do anything radical enough without first sifting through reams of evidence.

Might be interesting to know if people think there are any 'quick wins' to be had though...
Matt Houghton
Frequent Poster
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:00 am
SOS Reviews Editor

Re: Labour party policy on music

Postby ef37a » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:31 pm

blinddrew wrote:
ef37a wrote:"Laws work because people agree that they are appropriate, when people stop thinking they are appropriate they either stop respecting them, or ignore them, or, eventually, get them repealed."
Sorry Drew but ^ balderdash. How many pieces of legislation can you point to and say they were enacted because of evidence (as against PPolitical ideology, or predjudice) ?

How many pieces of legislation have been examined by independent, scientific bodies after say a ten year run? How many have been repealed? Very recent evidence shows that people have to kick up an ALLMIGHTY embarrassing stink to get even really, really bad things put right.

Dave.
You appear to be arguing against a point i didn't make Dave.

Well ok sorry, little bit but. Laws are generally made by 'interested' (not political necessarily) parties and often not out of the need of the great mass of the population.

Matt has just shown that I was wrong in that to some degree but I still stand by the fact that AFAIK laws are not examined on a regular basis to see if they do or still do the job they were originally framed for. But then, since there was rarely any logic behind the original legislation why would anyone bother.

The modern world IS fragmented into people 'doing their own thing' . The march of technological progress means that AI will see another swathe of people without a job.
Where are all the "Service Sector" jobs for the miners, steel and car workers? What are the taxi and lorry drivers of 2025 going to do?

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9460
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users