The social, political, economic, and cultural debates surrounding copyright and the MP3.

1. Copyright, the Culture
Industry & Mp3’s

2. What is Copyright?
“Copyright is a type of property that is
founded on a person's creative skill and
labour. It is designed to prevent the
unauthorised use by others of a work,
that is, the original form in which an idea
or information has been expressed by the
creator” (Attorney General Dept. 2008)

3. Copyright (economic) Rights
Copyright (non-economic) Rights
right to copy the right of integrity of authorship
attribution of ownership communicate
publish distribute
broadcast
rights against false attribution of ownership
make available online
publicly perform the right of reproduction

4. But can you really own
an idea?

5. Is thinking really producing?

6. Can an idea be a
product?

7. If yes then someone owes this guy a
lot of money

8. Apart from a distinct lack of physicality, which
makes it difficult to consider pieces of music
as objects, one of the biggest problems with
copyright is that it only seems to benefit a
certain number of people.

10. In many ways copyright acts as a safeguard for
these giant corporations. A way of protecting
their commodities.

11. In fact,

12. “[Copy]rights accounting for 70 to 80 percent of global
revenues end up in the hands of only five companies”
(Kretschmer, 2000)

13. The development of the notion of
copyright can then be seen to be
strongly linked to its commercial
potential.

15. The History of Copyright
“The history of the origins and development
of the concept of literary property
demonstrates the essential function of
copyright as an economic right of capital. The
incorporation of elements of an author’s
moral or natural right into copyright principles
has since obscured the separate interests of
authors and publishers” (Bettig, 1992).

16. Therefore, the development of the
notion of copyright is the result of economic
interest rather than of moral or ethical
concerns

17. According to the World
Intellectual Property
Organisation the purpose
of copyright is twofold:
"To encourage a dynamic
creative culture, while
returning value to creators
so that they can lead a
dignified economic
existence, and to provide
widespread, affordable
access to content for the
public.“

18. However
In the way that copyright hopes to encourage
creativity, some argue that...
“copyright is both a hindrance and a facilitator
of creativity in the digital realm (Klimis &
Wallis, 2009).

19. vs.

20. A: Arguments for Copyright
Without it, people might cease to be musically creative

21. The lack of physicality of music suggests it cannot be owned, stolen or even someone’s ‘property’.
B: Arguments against Copyright

22. Due to The Mp3’s lack of
physicality and transferability the
format has greatly changed the
way music is now produced,
consumed and distributed.

23. The internet has now
threatened to dispose of the
oligopolistic grip the industry
has over the market

24. Internet sites such as Napster which emerged in 1999
provided a file sharing network that allowed users to
share music with millions of other people
unsurprisingly the music industry clamped down on this

25. Deeming it a breach of copyright, a lawsuit was filed against
Napster in 1999 leading to its closure in February 2001.*
*Napster later remerged in 2003

27. People download all the time. And there are some
clever ways that have allowed people to share
music freely.
A number of peer 2 peer (P2P) programs emerged
after Napster using an open-sourced software
that could not be identified to any particular
persons in regards to legal action.
The record industry realized this and started to
target individuals who shared large collections of
their music via the internet.

29. Joel Tenenbaum
$22, 500
The amount of money Joel
Tenenbaum was charged for
each mp3 he illegally
downloaded
http://www.youtube.com/w
atch?v=GCOlaxeywlM

30. $80,000
The amount Jammie Thomas
Rossett was charged for
each song she illegally
downloaded
23 songs X $80,000 =
$1.92 million
Jammie Thomas-Rasset
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6534542.ece

31. $1.92 million seems a bit pricey for
just over two albums... So who is
behind all of this?

32. Dr. Evil
$22,500 per mp3
no...
make it
$80,000
Mwahahahahah...mwa
hahahahahaha...mwh
wahahahaha...mwhaa
hahahahahaahahahah

33. No its not Dr Evil.

35. Surely the comparison to Dr Evil paints quite a
dramatic picture of the RIAA...right???

36. Lets look at a set of
printable worksheets
released to teachers by the
RIAA...

38. This pamphlet is not a joke, and was given to
teachers by the Recording Industry Association of
America.
Lets take a closer look at one of the excerpts seen
in Part 2.

39. “Now find out if songlifting is a real problem in your
community. Use this chart to interview family members
and friends about where they get their music. Bring your
findings back to class and combine them with those of
your classmates. Use your data to figure out how much
songlifting occurs among the people you know. See for
yourself by completing the calculation below” (Harvey
2009).”
Part 2

40. There are clearly a number of areas of
concern here.
Governmentality
Culture Industry
Ideology
Fear mongering

41. But is
downloading
really stealing?

42. Does it really affect the industry that much?

43. The issue over Copyright on
the internet can be compared
to the anti-taping of recorded
music campaign launched in
the 1970’s

45. “In retrospect we know that home
taping did not kill musical creativity;
nor did it have any negative effects
on record sales”
(Volgsten & Akerberg, 2006, pp
356).
This campaign claimed that the copying of
music via cassette tapes was damaging the
creation of more and new music, however...

46. So why did the music industry
complain ?
One argument is that the less sales
the industry complained about...
And the music industry likes to secure its place
in the distribution and production of music.
Therefore, the major labels are all
about profit and control...
Not artistic integrity or
creativity
...was a result of consumers shifting
to more efficient discount retailers

47. So when the industry
bemoans profit losses as a
result of illegal file sharing,
can we still believe them?

48. Oberholzer and Strumpf (2007) found that the
music industry’s claim that
as a result of illegal downloading we suffered
a 3 per cent or 24 million album loss annually
was in fact, not true at all.

49. “On the basis of all
specification presented in this
paper, even our least precise
results, we can reject the
hypothesis that file sharing
cost the industry more than
24 million albums annually”
(Oberholzer & Strumpf, 2007).

50. So why does the industry still feel the need
to bemoan such ridiculous profit loses?

51. The music monopoly has
always had a secure place
in the market economy
because of its controlled
means of production and
distribution.
The internet as well as new technologies are now
changing this.
This has led the music industry,
unwillingly, into the online
marketplace, were this consumer-
led-file-sharing takes place.

52. By preventing file-sharing and
mp3 downloading on the
internet, Copyright, is simply a
way of securing the industry’s
power over the distribution
channels (Volgsten & Akerberg,
2006, pp 357).
So...

53. “But because music is information, music
cannot be owned. Information is based on the
circulation of knowledge therefore in this
regard, copyright, by inhibiting the free
circulation of music represents not an
opportunity but a threat to musical creativity”
(Volgsten & Akerberg, 2006, pp 357).

54. “What’s at stake in the filesharing
debates is not simply whether you
can download the latest hit single for
free or load your iPod with mood
music. This is ultimately a struggle
over the very ownership of culture,
where the media monopoly is
working to transform intellectual
property into something that more
closely resembles physical property:
i.e. a phenomenon where ‘ownership’
entails absolute control over how (or
if) one’s property circulates through
the world” (Rodman and
Vanderdonckt 2006, pp. 257).

55. New media like the Mp3, are
effecting peoples everyday
lives, as well as culture,
communities, institutions,
even peoples identities.
What all these debates
surrounding copyright and
MP3s reveal is that our
culture is becoming more
and more mediated by
these types of new
technologies.

56. Ultimately the issue of Copyright boils down
to questions of democracy. Who gets to say
what, where and when?

57. In most cases, that is for the music industry to
decide,
“Copyright and trademark enforcement is a
turf war over who is going to get to make art
with the new technologies. And it seems that
if you’re not on the team of a company large
enough to control a significant part of the
playing field, and cannot afford your very own
team of lawyers, you don't get to play” (Klein,
2000, pp. 179).

59. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAjr7I76GsY

60. What you just heard was a ‘mashup’ created by
yours truly. At times it features three different
artists singing or playing at the same time.
I was able to do this using a music editing
software program known as Audacity. This is free
software available to download on the internet!
Whether you complain about artistic intentions
or not there is creativity in the mashup, even if it
is in most cases, just aesthetic.

61. Coombe and Klein both show that copyright is
only used to prohibit the reuse of music based
on economic, rather than moral grounds. They
also claim that copyright is an infringement on
the democratic right to use one’s symbolic
environment in free expression.
(See Coombe, 1998; Klein 2000).

62. And because creativity has always come from
reusing and reworking the past, it shouldn’t
be hindered by issues of copyright.
The fact is with new technologies comes new
ways to be creative.

63. “[E]verybody’s music
belongs to everybody
else” (Keil & Feld
1994, pp. 321).

64. References
• Bettig, R.V. ‘Critical perspectives on the history and philosophy of copyright’.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication.1992, 9: 131-155,
• Coombe, R. ‘The Cultural Life of Intellectual Property; Authorship, Appropriation
and the Law, Durham: Duke University Press, 1998
• Keil, C. & Feld, S. ‘Commodified grooves’. Music Groove, University of Chicago
Press: Chicago, 1994.
• Klein, N. No Logo. London: Harper Collins, 2000.
• Klimis, R. Wallis, G, ‘Copyright and Entrepreneurship: Catalyst or Barrier?’
Information, Communication & Society, 2009: Routledge.
• Kretschmer, M. ‘In defence of piracy: Music copyright and creativity in the digital
environment.’ 2000, 11: pp. 1-10
• Oberholzer, F. Strumbf, K. ‘The effect of file sharing on record sales’. The journal of
political economy, 2007
• Rodman, G. Vanderdonckt, C. ‘Music for nothing or, I want my MP3’. Cultural
Studies: Routledge, 2006.
• Volgsten, U. & Akerberg, Y. ‘Copyright, Music and Morals’. Music and Manipulation:
On the social uses and social control of music. New York: Berghann Books, 2006, pp
336-365.