Copyright law, version 3

I checked out voluntary collective licensing upon DebaterPrime's recommendation.  It sounds like a great idea.  However, voluntary collective licensing is incapable of eliminating the need for copyright law reform. First, voluntary collective licensing is by definition voluntary, and it is unrealistic to expect that all artists will choose to use it.  Their work should still be protected. Second, the principles of voluntary collective licensing couldn't be effectively applied to other media, such as books or inventions.  We need appropriate copyright laws for more than just recorded music.  Third, our copyright laws are a joke.  They're impractical, unrealistic, and unfair.  Even if voluntary collective licensing insured that they would no longer effect our lives, such stupid laws should still be eliminated.

Our laws should protect what should be protected but no more.  We need a philosophy regarding what should and should not be legally protected, and then shape all copyright law - for recordings, sheet music, books, everything - around that.

Questions about copyright law

I have been reading Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture lately, after a friend recommended it. It's very interesting. Right now I'm in chapter 4. (I wish I had more time to read!)

Here are some of the questions the book has raised:

• What is the extent of our right to ownership of private property?
• What is "property"?
• What does it mean to take away our right to property? (This is important. Does it just mean depriving the owner of gain, financial or otherwise? Or does it include any use of another person's property?)
  

I have not come to any conclusions yet about what copyright law should be.

Copyright law, version 2

Note: this is simply an edited version of the previous post.

I think we all agree; copyright law can be pretty ridiculous. Exhibit A: It's actually against the law for us to make recordings of copyrighted music and give them to our friends and family without permission from the publisher. So every year, Dad spends hours emailing dozens of publishers so we can make CDs for Christmas gifts. Most of the publishers give him permission, but we've had to exclude several pieces from our recordings because we couldn't get permission, because getting permission was too difficult, or because we couldn't get permission without paying a fee. In fact, there are entire publishers that we don't even bother emailing.

This area of copyright law strikes me as unbelievably stupid. Here's why: first, our recordings do not deprive the publishers of business, and second, our recordings actually promote the publishers' products.

Imagine this scene: My friend gives me a recording of her playing Mr. Smith's arrangement of Hymn X. I really like Mr. Smith's arrangement. What goes through my mind? "Well, I already have this recording. Guess I don't need to buy the sheet music from the publisher!" Of course not! My friend's recording certainly does not obviate the need for the publisher's product.

In fact, I'm far more likely to buy the sheet music for Mr. Smith's arrangement after hearing my friend's recording than I would be if I'd never heard the piece before. If anything, publishers should support the recording of their sheet music as free advertisement!

Our recordings are not just unharmful to the publishers; they're actively beneficial. And they would be even if we sell them.

But we're not selling them. We're giving them as Christmas gifts to our friends and family! That we should need permission to do so is simply ridiculous.

Copyright law

(This is the stream-of-consciousness version of the above post.)

I think we all agree; copyright law can be pretty ridiculous. Exhibit A: the laws governing what recordings we can make. It's actually against the law for us to make recordings of copyrighted music and give them to our friends and family without permission from the publisher! So every year, Dad spends hours emailing dozens of publishers so we can make CDs for Christmas gifts. Most of the publishers give him permission, but we've had to exclude certain pieces from our recordings because getting permission was too difficult, because we couldn't get permission, or because we couldn't get permission without paying a fee.

And we usually only email the publishers of hymn arrangements and sacred music! We don't even bother trying to get permission to record copyrighted editions of classical music (the music itself is in the public domain - it's just the editions that are copyrighted). What if the music is memorized? What if we used more than one edition?

This area of copyright law strikes me as unbelievably stupid. If anything, publishers should support the recording of their hymn arrangements as free advertisement. Such recordings promote the sheet music - they don't obviate the need for it. If my friend gives me a recording of her playing Mr. Smith's arrangement of Hymn X, and I really like it, I don't think, "Well, I already have this recording. Guess I don't need to buy the music from the publisher!" Of course not! Instead, I'm much more likely to buy the sheet music than I would be if I'd never heard the piece before. If I'm not a musician, then I wouldn't have been buying the sheet music anyway, so my friend's recording certainly wouldn't have robbed the publisher of business.

These laws hurt us and they hurt the publishers. We need to make a change!