Is Intellectual Property going to die?

[Dave at the Movies]

Honestly I don't think the idea of intellectual property will last. I think people are going to have to get more creative in how they make money with music and movies.

I technically don't believe in intellectual property. Not only is it almost impossible to protect with the internet now, I also don't think it is logical for someone to own an idea.

I don't think it'll be the end of movies or music. I just think it will get a lot more competitive. The internet has kind of even things up as far as entertainment goes. I don't think Los Angeles will have much control over it in a few years.

[Red Impact]

Nope. People have no problem suing for it now, even over the internet. It's not that hard.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with an author or artist having the right to control how their work is used for profit, personally. The patent process needs to be reformed, but such things greatly help writers and artists.

[Dave at the Movies]

Feb 2, 2011 15:20:13 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Nope. People have no problem suing for it now, even over the internet. It's not that hard.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with an author or artist having the right to control how their work is used for profit, personally.

Suing hasn't stopped torrents and all that though. I'm not against the idea of intellectual property. I just don't think it is very practical to think you can protect it anymore.

It is only the big companies that sue because they have the money and they only sue about maybe five percent of the people that copy or download their stuff. Reason they can't get more is because they basically have to break privacy laws to do it.

[hollywood]

While I get tired of all the legal haranguing that takes place over intellectual properties at the higher levels of Hollywood, I am very much in favor of intellectual properties and copyright laws.

If I publish a story, that story, its characters, the plot, themes, and so on should be mine and mine alone. There should be laws in place preventing someone from attempting to claim my ideas as there own and profiting from them.

For instance, I've worked with an author who published an entire series aimed at 8-10 year olds featuring spooky stories themed after individual US states. It's an idea that's served him very well. But it's HIS idea and no one else's. I shouldn't be allowed to publish my own story with his banner and gimmick and try to pass the whole thing off as my own.

The whole thing gets muddy when people sell those properties and the rights therein to other individuals or entities, but in its basic sense I'm absolutely in favor of intellectual properties. And I don't think the internet's going to eliminate them. If anything, it's merely opened the door for more intellectual properties.

[Red Impact]

It did kill Napster.

But really, it's not so much torrents that I'm referring to. It's other people using them for their own profit, ala using patented items or copyrighted characters. There will always be people that find ways to watch media for free, but the major purpose of intellectual property is to protect writers, authors and inventors from having their work ripped off by someone else for profit. I don't think that's really going to be going anywhere. I do think the patent process needs to be reformed though, way too many patents are granted for vague ideas without any actual working item.

[strykerdarksilence]

I didn't even know it was sick...









I'll leave now.

[Rococo]

The state of the entertainment industry (Movies, music etc.) is incredibly depressing, indeed. It only seems to be getting worse; Cake had a number one album recently and yet they only sold 44,000 copies - officially, the lowest selling number one record in the history of the Nielsen SoundScan tracking. It upsets me greatly that an incredibly talented musician or artist who is creating something incredibly unique and beautiful has to either (a) quit or (b) find supplemental work in order to continue to create their art because people no longer wish to pay for music. The movie industry is still taking in bucket-loads of cash and TV shows are lucrative with advertising deals.

It's a damn shame that so many people will listen to the radio, exclusively, and so Rihanna will shift a few million units but a band like Wolf Parade will be lucky to shift 10,000. Disgusting.

[hollywood]

Feb 2, 2011 15:33:30 GMT -5 @strykerdarksilence said:

I didn't even know it was sick...









I'll leave now.

[Dave at the Movies]

Feb 2, 2011 15:36:10 GMT -5 Rococo said:

The state of the entertainment industry (Movies, music etc.) is incredibly depressing, indeed. It only seems to be getting worse; Cake had a number one album recently and yet they only sold 44,000 copies - officially, the lowest selling number one record in the history of the Nielsen SoundScan tracking. It upsets me greatly that an incredibly talented musician or artist who is creating something incredibly unique and beautiful has to either (a) quit or (b) find supplemental work in order to continue to create their art because people no longer wish to pay for music. The movie industry is still taking in bucket-loads of cash and TV shows are lucrative with advertising deals.

It's a damn shame that so many people will listen to the radio, exclusively, and so Rihanna will shift a few million units but a band like Wolf Parade will be lucky to shift 10,000. Disgusting.

Music is all about exposure now. With the internet the possibilities are endless.

I am getting into music right now but I'm smart enough to know that I probably won't get huge or make a living doing it which is why I'm also getting into podcasting which will take over radio someday and keeping my day job for now.

Music should be about the music and not the money. I get pissed when I hear artists whine about file sharing. If they are really good and determined enough they will do fine. Whining about it and crying like a bitch will get you no where.

[Red Impact]

Podcasting?

You might want to look at something less... dubious as a future money generating stream. Even if it takes over radio completely, the market is going to be so flooded that it's not going to be a revenue stream for... probably the same percentage as musicians who can turn their music into a career.

The internet has done wonders for exposure. We have access to more musicians now than we've ever had before. Still, without some stream of revenue, the likelihood that those musicians will be able to keep producing music long-term gets less and less likely. That doesnt' mean they don't care about music, but if it is ultimately forced to become a hobby, other things are going to get in the way.

[Rococo]

Feb 2, 2011 15:49:09 GMT -5 Dave at the Movies said:

Music is all about exposure now. With the internet the possibilities are endless.

They're seemingly endless but there are so many bands trying to promote themselves that it becomes hard to wade through the mediocrity to find something special.

I am getting into music right now but I'm smart enough to know that I probably won't get huge or make a living doing it which is why I'm also getting into podcasting which will take over radio someday and keeping my day job for now.

That's the issue; so many artists simply cannot live off of their music like they used to. There are musicians that I enjoy who make less than $30k per year after touring costs/merch costs/manager costs etc. You can do it independently but it won't work for everyone.

Music should be about the music and not the money. I get pissed when I hear artists whine about file sharing. If they are really good and determined enough they will do fine. Whining about it and crying like a bitch will get you no where.

(a) Well yes, integrity should be more important than profit but if you don't have income you cannot create music. Music, to me, is so very incredibly important and so it distresses me when artists whose music I cherish can no longer create music because it isn't fiscally realistic.
(b) Determination has nothing to do with file sharing; you can be as determined as you want but if people don't want to pay for something, they won't. If we are to take that as a rule, then Katy Perry and Lady Gaga must be more determined than Arcade Fire and Bon Iver; no, the former are cases of "right place, right time". No matter how talented you are, no matter how good your music, people will download because it is free. There needs to be an incentive for people to buy music. For me, personally, it's owning the tangible record, opening it up and placing it in my CD tray and listening to it from beginning to end. Unfortunately, the majority of people who are music listeners aren't as passionate about it as I am; they just want the song on their iPod.

I think it's a little unfair to be "pissed" at musicians who are upset at file-sharing; wouldn't you be? Let us say you are creating something, a true labour of love, something you have poured yourself into and then everybody just treats themselves to it for free - you wouldn't be upset? Being a musician is a career like any other - they create something and should be reimbursed for that creation.

[hollywood]

Feb 2, 2011 15:49:09 GMT -5 Dave at the Movies said:

Feb 2, 2011 15:36:10 GMT -5 Rococo said:

The state of the entertainment industry (Movies, music etc.) is incredibly depressing, indeed. It only seems to be getting worse; Cake had a number one album recently and yet they only sold 44,000 copies - officially, the lowest selling number one record in the history of the Nielsen SoundScan tracking. It upsets me greatly that an incredibly talented musician or artist who is creating something incredibly unique and beautiful has to either (a) quit or (b) find supplemental work in order to continue to create their art because people no longer wish to pay for music. The movie industry is still taking in bucket-loads of cash and TV shows are lucrative with advertising deals.

It's a damn shame that so many people will listen to the radio, exclusively, and so Rihanna will shift a few million units but a band like Wolf Parade will be lucky to shift 10,000. Disgusting.

Music is all about exposure now. With the internet the possibilities are endless.

I am getting into music right now but I'm smart enough to know that I probably won't get huge or make a living doing it which is why I'm also getting into podcasting which will take over radio someday and keeping my day job for now.

Music should be about the music and not the money. I get pissed when I hear artists whine about file sharing. If they are really good and determined enough they will do fine. Whining about it and crying like a bitch will get you no where.

This is an case of times changing and some artists not being able to keep up.

Many of the established artists today reached their current status through the "old school" model of the music business...something along the lines of honing their craft in night clubs and desperately seeking a record deal with a producer. The more successful ones eventually manage to negotiate more bargaining power as time goes on.

That model is changing. It was gradual at first, but it's starting to snowball. Now, a record deal isn't necessarily the end-all/be-all of the industry. Some bands have become underground sensations without producing a single CD, without hiring a single publicist, and they've done it through avenues like MySpace, Facebook, and so on.

For the established stars, who've spent their lives working within the old system, this new method can be understandably intimidating. It could be seen as a threat to the method they know and understand. The stars who understand this shift and manage to adapt with it will likely enjoy continued success. Those who don't will fade into obscurity. And today's newer, aspiring musicians who recognize the endless possibilities of the internet will be the stars of tomorrow.

[Jay Peas 42]

Generally, all democracies degenerate into mob rule, and a triumph of the will to power of thieves over the legal rights of our most productive citizens is a needed step. But I also think Idiocracy is the most accurate vision of the future ever made.

[Red Impact]

Feb 2, 2011 16:10:19 GMT -5 Jay Peas 42 said:

Generally, all democracies degenerate into mob rule, and a triumph of the will to power of thieves over the legal rights of our most productive citizens is a needed step. But I also think Idiocracy is the most accurate vision of the future ever made.

OT, but I think referencing Idiocracy is bound to be the new Godwin Rule of the internet.

[cruiserfan]

Feb 2, 2011 15:20:13 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Nope. People have no problem suing for it now, even over the internet. It's not that hard.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with an author or artist having the right to control how their work is used for profit, personally. The patent process needs to be reformed, but such things greatly help writers and artists.

There's a thing now called Creative Commons, where creators of content can apply customised rights to their work to make it clear to others what they do and do not want done with their work. It's supposed to be a middle ground between "all rights reserved" which restricts any kind of sharing on the internet and in most cases is ignored, and this so called "death of intellectual property". www.creativecommons.org

[Red Impact]

Yeah, I know what creative commons is.

[EvenBaldobombHasAJob]

Intellectual property would only go away if people stopped producing art. if you create something, it's yours. as well as it should be. and calling someone greedy or whiney because their property is being stolen smacks of self-entitlement.

[The OP]

I think the issue of file sharing is overblown as a cause for a decline in major label music sales. I can tell you one thing, my mom and a lot of people her age have no idea how to download music illegally. Everyone discusses the music business in terms of what's popular with teens and what they do because that's the group that is focused on by the major labels. It is the easiest group to market to and they have the most disposable income. The labels push artists that they think will get over with this group and then pay for the music to get on the radio, hook them up with the right media appearances and basically spend a fortune on advertising on production, which is why they have to sell ten million records to make any money. It's a whole symbiotic self-sustaining thing that has basically nothing to do with the music business for people who are not a part of it. A lot has changed since the mid-90s and the telecommunications act. Since then we have been in a pay to play situation with radio and that's why all you have are manufactured pop artists. That's not to say that these artists and their producers don't sometimes make good music, but it is what it is.

I think it would be very short-sighted for any artist who operates outside mainstream pop music to not want people to be able to hear or download at least a few of your songs online if you want anybody to hear them at all, and certainly if you want to have any hope of selling them an entire album at some point.

[Dave at the Movies]

Feb 2, 2011 19:21:21 GMT -5 EvenBaldobombHasAJob said:

Intellectual property would only go away if people stopped producing art. if you create something, it's yours. as well as it should be. and calling someone greedy or whiney because their property is being stolen smacks of self-entitlement.

Intellectual property is still a pretty new concept as far as society goes. In my opinion I don't believe in it. I don't think someone can own an idea. Once an idea is out it is out.

Can you force people not to tell a joke you made up or sing a song you wrote? Can you force them not to copy a cd which is their physical property which does exist?

I agree that using another persons specific idea to gain money can be a low thing to do.

Look at it this way though. What if the first person to build a car said no one else can build a car because it is there idea? Technically it is the same thing.

If intellectual property existed as a natural law the advancement if society would be very slow.

[Red Impact]

Not really. There's evidence of patent law dating back to ancient Greece, even if it wasn't called that (inventors given exclusive right to profit for X period of time). And that wasn't really a period of stifled human development, was it?

There needs to be a distinction into what it actually is though. Intellectual property doesn't make it illegal for a fan to hum something to themselves. It makes it illegal to record and release an album with someone else's song without their permission. It doesn't stop someone from writing a fanfic, it prevents someone from trying to make money off of those characters by publishing it.

If a person is really an artist, then they really don't need to steal someone elses' characters or songs. That's not restricting the flow of ideas, it's just telling people that they have to come up with their own characters and can't piggyback off of someone else's (unless they fall under fair use). They can still rip the hell off of it, they just can't try to make it official.

Patent law is a different animal and, in my opinion, one that should be greatly reformed. Originally, it was designed to allow inventors to exclusive profits from their inventions for a set period of time. Meaning, they had to have an actual invention. Another inventor could come up with a different device to do the same thing and they wouldn't be subject to patents. A patent was for a particular invention. That way, research and development was promoted, because people could actually spend more than just spare time working on something but every development didn't shut off all avenues of further development in the same way.

Now, patents can be filed for extremely vague ideas without any working prototypes, even without anything novel (patents have been filed for the comb-over). That's what really needs to be reformed.