Does infringing copyrights cause unemployment?

[edwest2]

“feed on the artist”? While anyone can post their work on the internet to make money off of it, piracy is still a concern. What does the music industry do for the artist?

"Tom Silverman founded Tommy Boy Records in 1981:

"… he says musicians do need labels.

“You may not call it a label, but whatever your team is, who’s going to do marketing, who’s going to do billing, who’s going to monetize the assets and the brand?” he asks. “Who’s going to do collections? Who’s going to do legal? Who’s going to protect them when people steal their stuff?”

Based on my experience working with artists, very few understand the business side of things. They have no background in it. They have spent a great deal of time and money to learn their craft and generally expect to have agreements honored.

Who is the largest music retailer in the US? The Apple iTunes store:

apple.com/pr/library/2010/02/25itunes.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Texas_Roofer]

“feed on the artist”? While anyone can post their work on the internet to make money off of it, piracy is still a concern. What does the music industry do for the artist?

"Tom Silverman founded Tommy Boy Records in 1981:

"… he says musicians do need labels.

“You may not call it a label, but whatever your team is, who’s going to do marketing, who’s going to do billing, who’s going to monetize the assets and the brand?” he asks. “Who’s going to do collections? Who’s going to do legal? Who’s going to protect them when people steal their stuff?”

Based on my experience working with artists, very few understand the business side of things. They have no background in it. They have spent a great deal of time and money to learn their craft and generally expect to have agreements honored.

Who is the largest music retailer in the US? The Apple iTunes store:

apple.com/pr/library/2010/02/25itunes.html

Peace,
Ed

I am being kind, read how much money Badfinger made or Little Richard you may find immoral actions were standard in that industry before the internet was invented. The items you list are done daily in companies for 25%. Certainly new artists have more risk so maybe 50% for short term is fair but 95% for long term contracts are far from fair.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve read a few horror stories about artists being unfairly compensated. Somehow, Elvis managed to make a little money. Before the internet, I’m sure a few artists privately told musician friends, “Look. Don’t sign with them.” However, there were people who did make money. Greed and a lust for power have always been around. The internet has not made people smarter per se.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ProVobis]

Gorgeous!

It seems as if it’s actually in Latin, but with Spanish sub-titles. Even so - very beautiful!

Definitely in Latin, which makes the music not only beautiful but multinational.

Here’s the text:

users.on.net/~algernon/aveverum/translation.html

 

[Trader]

Definitely in Latin, which makes the music not only beautiful but multinational.

Here’s the text:

users.on.net/~algernon/aveverum/translation.html

The text that Mozart used has also been set to music by many others including Richard Proulx of Chicago. Mozart did it better than the others, in my not so humble opinion.

The source of the text is Pope Innocent III, IV, or VI, and was already 400 years old when Mozart used it, so he did not have to pay royalties either. They can settle up in heaven where that music is near the top on all the charts.

 

[ProVobis]

The text that Mozart used has also been set to music by many others including Richard Proulx of Chicago. Mozart did it better than the others, in my not so humble opinion.

The source of the text is Pope Innocent III, IV, or VI, and was already 400 years old when Mozart used it, so he did not have to pay royalties either. They can settle up in heaven where that music is near the top on all the charts.

This is true. But although the music itself may be in public domain, nevertheless companies like Shirmer et al, which publish and sell sheet music, have publication copyrights, meaning it’s illegal to xerox them or scan them into your computer. However, you can “play” the pieces into computer software, which you can then use to print for yourself, providing you pay for that software. Copyrights can get quite complicated.

By the way, I attended many Masses at Holy Name Cathedral where Proulx conducted. Brilliant musician as well. The world will miss him.

 

[Trader]

This is true. But although the music itself may be in public domain, nevertheless companies like Shirmer et al, which publish and sell sheet music, have publication copyrights, meaning it’s illegal to xerox them or scan them into your computer. However, you can “play” the pieces into computer software, which you can then use to print for yourself, providing you pay for that software. Copyrights can get quite complicated.

By the way, I attended many Masses at Holy Name Cathedral where Proulx conducted. Brilliant musician as well. The world will miss him.

I agree. We use a lot of Proulx’s music at our parish.

Also in Chicago is our country’s largest publisher of church music, GIA Publications, Inc. It is the result of the combination of JS Paluch and World Library Publications which Paluch bought in 1972 from the WLP founder, Omer Westendorf.

Westendorf was a machine gunner in the US Army during WWII in Europe. The noise of war so offended his musical sensibilities that wherever he went with the Army, he would go to the local churches for peace and quiet. During those visits he collected the music being used in those churches. After he returned home he continued to collect European church music and started WLP from his home in Cincinnati. Providentially, when Mass was first celebrated in English in 1964, he was nearly the only organization to have enough music to make up a new hymnal, literally on his dining room table. He is also the composer of “Gift of Finest Wheat”, which he wrote for the Eucharistic Congress of 1976 held in Philadelphia. He died in 1997.

 

[didymus]

Just wondering -I think that commercials against pirating argue this but I’m not sure if it is very likely to be true.

Creators of intellectual property deserve to be paid but exactly how that is worked out is a matter of civil law.
To take an extreme, if copyrights & patents were perpetual that would strangle innovation.
If creators got only upfront payment (like Mozart & Beethoven did) that would discourage a lot from ever trying.

Right now I think copyright law is too draconian and they run too long, plus companies are way too free throwing around takedown notices and cease-and-desist letters to intimidate people who haven’t violated any laws.

 

[Trader]

Creators of intellectual property deserve to be paid but exactly how that is worked out is a matter of civil law.
To take an extreme, if copyrights & patents were perpetual that would strangle innovation.
If creators got only upfront payment (like Mozart & Beethoven did) that would discourage a lot from ever trying.

Right now I think copyright law is too draconian and they run too long, plus companies are way too free throwing around takedown notices and cease-and-desist letters to intimidate people who haven’t violated any laws.

Just some copyright trivia for you. The first person to outlive a US Copyright was Irving Berlin. He wrote music in his teens and lived to be 101 years old. Apparently that worried Congress so much that the term of copyrights was extended to life plus 70 years in 1998.

 

[didymus]

Just some copyright trivia for you. The first person to outlive a US Copyright was Irving Berlin. He wrote music in his teens and lived to be 101 years old. Apparently that worried Congress so much that the term of copyrights was extended to life plus 70 years in 1998.

Even if they passed the bill holding up people like Mr Berlin as beneficiaries you can bet more nefarious interests were at work. See the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (aka the Mickey Mouse Law).

 

[Joel_PF]

Just wondering -I think that commercials against pirating argue this but I’m not sure if it is very likely to be true.

No, it doesn’t. It merely changes the jobs.

If instead of paying $20 for a CD you get it for free, people in the recording industry lose their jobs. But you’ve still got your $20 in your wallet, that you’re going to spend on something else, for instance, going to the movies. And then movie industry will grow and hire more people.

Or you’ll go to more restaurants with the money you saved. Or you’ll buy more books. Whatever you do, new jobs are created elsewhere.

But what if you just sit on that money and never spend it? Well, then the total amount of money circulating goes down, and the value of each dollar goes up, meaning that prices go down. And with prices down, other people will be able to buy more with their money, and jobs will be created in whatever market segment they decide to spend on.

There is one, and only one, thing that increases unemployment: stricter labor laws. And only one thing that can be done to decrease unemployment in a permanent way: taking them down.

 

[edwest2]

Breaking the law should never force anyone to change jobs.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Breaking the law should never force anyone to change jobs.

Peace,
Ed

Amen!

 

[jmcrae]

Breaking the law should never force anyone to change jobs.

I agree.

And putting small companies out of business reduces the total number of jobs available in a given market - those jobs are not replaced by anything else; those people - especially those in upper management and those with strong creative talent - simply move away from the area and find jobs elsewhere - probably with larger companies that have stricter hiring standards -thus pushing low-skilled and inexperienced workers out of the market altogether.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I worked for a company that, if they discovered unauthorized software on any of their computers, fired the branch manager.

Many companies will fire anyone that uses programs illegally. And they should, because anyone doing this shows that they have no regard for the law. They are just as likely to steal from their employer.

There is simply no legitimate excuse for anyone doing this. NONE at all.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Breaking the law should never force anyone to change jobs.
Ed

Yes, breaking the law SHOULD cost a person their job. If they will steal software, they will also steal from their company. Breaking the law could subject the company to massive fines (I know, my former company paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars for unauthorized use of software, before they cracked down HARD on it.

I can not believe that people are essentially stating that a crime is not a valid reason to lose your job.

Ever hear of the 10 Commandments?

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Yes, breaking the law SHOULD cost a person their job. If they will steal software, they will also steal from their company. Breaking the law could subject the company to massive fines (I know, my former company paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars for unauthorized use of software, before they cracked down HARD on it.

I can not believe that people are essentially stating that a crime is not a valid reason to lose your job.

Ever hear of the 10 Commandments?

I think Ed was referring to the piracy costing legitimate persons to lose their jobs and have to change careers, as in my case.

 

[Joel_PF]

It all comes down to whether making a copy is or is not stealing. Either way, it doesn’t cause higher unemployment overall, though.

 

[jmcrae]

It all comes down to whether making a copy is or is not stealing.

I don’t think there is any doubt that, any time you make a copy instead of buying something, when those are your two choices, that in fact, you are stealing.

Either way, it doesn’t cause higher unemployment overall, though.

Do you have evidence of this?

In my case, the software company I was working for went out of business because people were copying our software instead of buying it.

Twelve people became at least temporarily unemployed. No other small company took the place of that company to create 12 replacement jobs, so those 12 jobs are permanently gone from the economy, which means that, down at the bottom of the totem pole somewhere, there are 12 more low-skilled workers who are unable to find any work, than otherwise there would have been, since in our case, we displaced 12 people who were less talented than ourselves, who in their turn displaced another 12 who were less talented than them, and so on down to the bottom of the line.

In Peggy’s case, her entire industry ceased to exist, and as far as I know, no replacement industry came into being to replace it, so again, everyone who became unemployed in that industry displaced other workers, who in their turn displaced other workers, and the same number of low-skilled workers are now unemployed, who would have otherwise been employed.