On intellectual property
It's not a problem that's new to anyone that owns a computer. The continuing controversy surrounding free use and intellectual property is one of the most pressing legal issues today. It used to be an issue of civilians versus The Man, but now musical artists themselves are challenging the limits of copyright, record distribution, and the like.
A few of my favorite musicians (e.g. Bjork, Radiohead, and YACHT, among others) are notorious for their blatant opposition (and in some cases, disobedience) of copyright laws. Bjork crafted her album Vespertine with Napster in mind (she chose sounds "that would sound good when downloaded" -- this was in 2001, the advent of the MP3); Radiohead always manages to "leak" their albums right before releasing them (and, in the case of In Rainbows, making customers pay their own price for the album); YACHT uses pirated software to mix their songs, and they recently offered the instrumental tracks of all of their work for public download on their website.
I cared little about the issue of intellectual property for a long time. I was aware that these artists did these things, but I mostly had a "negative" attitude towards people who tried to bend copyright rules. Most people I know that use LimeWire use it mostly for reasons of defiance instead of shelling out $10 for an album. (Personally I think there are better ways to rebel than using LimeWire, but that's my opinion.) But now that I see musicians doing things like giving away their music, I've realized that copyright laws often have little to do with the musicians' rights--they're put in place because the companies that "own" the music want to, in effect, monopolize on intellectual property. I'm not saying that these companies are "evil"; I'm not one to complain just because something is corporate. I have little respect for people who take this sort of knee-jerk reaction without actually examining an issue.
What are we paying for when we buy an album? Before the days of digital download, one could argue that advertisement/packaging/shipping and distribution was covered in the cost of an album. But now that we can buy albums online (and, because of the lack of these things, for a lower price), there should be no reason to pay, right? I'm most astounded by the concept of paying money for a series of numbers on a computer, for sounds. Goods and services I can understand, but not music. I don't grasp the concept of paying for thoughts or anything else immaterial. Asking permission to use them, yes, but not paying for them. Don't get me wrong, I pay for my music (and occasionally use SkreemR...ahem...) but I don't know what I'm paying for, especially since many musicians seem to want little money for doing what they love. Moreover, I don't necessarily think it's right for a company to treat thoughts and sounds like commodities.
This isn't helped by the fact that I've recently discovered the mega-mashup artist Girl Talk, whose songs use little (if any) original content. Ironically, I've never heard of any lawsuit being pressed against this guy. (Fun fact: I didn't especially care for him until he threw some of Montreal and Radiohead into the mix). I'm almost tempted to buy his album on iTunes (yes, buy) but I fear that anyone who listens to his music will be sued (haha).
Intellectual property is an interesting subject I plan to look more into.
Read YACHT's thoughts about piracy and an interview with Girl Talk.
A few of my favorite musicians (e.g. Bjork, Radiohead, and YACHT, among others) are notorious for their blatant opposition (and in some cases, disobedience) of copyright laws. Bjork crafted her album Vespertine with Napster in mind (she chose sounds "that would sound good when downloaded" -- this was in 2001, the advent of the MP3); Radiohead always manages to "leak" their albums right before releasing them (and, in the case of In Rainbows, making customers pay their own price for the album); YACHT uses pirated software to mix their songs, and they recently offered the instrumental tracks of all of their work for public download on their website.
I cared little about the issue of intellectual property for a long time. I was aware that these artists did these things, but I mostly had a "negative" attitude towards people who tried to bend copyright rules. Most people I know that use LimeWire use it mostly for reasons of defiance instead of shelling out $10 for an album. (Personally I think there are better ways to rebel than using LimeWire, but that's my opinion.) But now that I see musicians doing things like giving away their music, I've realized that copyright laws often have little to do with the musicians' rights--they're put in place because the companies that "own" the music want to, in effect, monopolize on intellectual property. I'm not saying that these companies are "evil"; I'm not one to complain just because something is corporate. I have little respect for people who take this sort of knee-jerk reaction without actually examining an issue.
What are we paying for when we buy an album? Before the days of digital download, one could argue that advertisement/packaging/shipping and distribution was covered in the cost of an album. But now that we can buy albums online (and, because of the lack of these things, for a lower price), there should be no reason to pay, right? I'm most astounded by the concept of paying money for a series of numbers on a computer, for sounds. Goods and services I can understand, but not music. I don't grasp the concept of paying for thoughts or anything else immaterial. Asking permission to use them, yes, but not paying for them. Don't get me wrong, I pay for my music (and occasionally use SkreemR...ahem...) but I don't know what I'm paying for, especially since many musicians seem to want little money for doing what they love. Moreover, I don't necessarily think it's right for a company to treat thoughts and sounds like commodities.
This isn't helped by the fact that I've recently discovered the mega-mashup artist Girl Talk, whose songs use little (if any) original content. Ironically, I've never heard of any lawsuit being pressed against this guy. (Fun fact: I didn't especially care for him until he threw some of Montreal and Radiohead into the mix). I'm almost tempted to buy his album on iTunes (yes, buy) but I fear that anyone who listens to his music will be sued (haha).
Intellectual property is an interesting subject I plan to look more into.
Read YACHT's thoughts about piracy and an interview with Girl Talk.