Are Copying and Sharing the Same Thing?
I came across this article in a publication from American University. It’s a summary of a panel discussion held on the campus about copyright issues in the digital age. One of the panelists was a songwriter, Samantha Murphy, who records and publishes her music on the internet. Her comments impresses upon me (again) how little most people really understand about these issues. So I thought a deconstruction of her comments, as reported, would offer a good setting in which to discuss copyright law as it applies to digital copying and sharing. And I’m also going to invite Samantha to respond here.
From the article: “Samantha Murphy, owner of SMtv Music and an independent singer/songwriter, said it is more important to protect freedom of expression and the forward movement of technology than to be paid for her music.
She is a proponent of fair use and said that she doesn’t see any problem with people making copies of her albums to share with family or friends.”
My Comments: Fair use allows a person to use, in specific, limited ways, copyrighted material without having to seek prior permission from the copyright holder. Fair use does not currently allow the wholesale copying of music as an alternative to buying it. But the thing is, copyright law does not prevent people from copying music without paying for it. Copyright law prevents people from copying music without paying for it, if the copyright holder does not want them to do so. Copyright law says to people that if you want to copy a piece of music, you must have the permission of the copyright holder. That permission can be given in a couple of different ways. One way is for the person who wants to make the copy to simply ask for permission. “Dear Copyright Holder, May I copy your record and give copies to my friends without paying you for it?” Copyright holder can say yes or no. The second way to give permission is for the copyright holder to say in advance that they do not object to free copying and distribution of their record ( and list any restrictions they might want to put on that).
So if Samantha wants to let people copy her music and give it to their family and friends, she can simply put a notice on her cd’s and on her website that says: Copyright 2007, Samantha Murphy. Permission granted for unlimited copying and performance of this recording.” Or it could say “I give permission for any person to copy and give this recording to his or her family and friends.”
If that’s what she wants to let people do, then she just needs to say so. She can also include any restrictions she may have, such as “I do not grant permission to copy and sell this record to others without specific permission. I do not give permission to use this music for free in a commercially distributed film, television show, or any advertising format. These recordings may not be used as the theme song for any event, company, organization, or political candidate without express, prior permission.”
She can be as specific as she wants to be in her notice, such as “I give permission for this recording to be used in a student or independent film with a production budget less than $20,000.”
From the article: “Murphy said she would rather have her music be available to everyone than she be paid for every single c.d. She even allows consumers to listen to her albums in their entirety on her Web site.”
My Comments: All well and good, but be careful what you mean. Would Murphy be okay with a small label copying and selling the recording without her permission? After all, that would get the music to more people. If she fails to retain control of her copyrighted material, she may find herself in exactly that position. It is better to understand that you can control the use of your copyrighted material in the specific ways that you wish by giving permissions, rather than to say that “music should be free.”
From the article: “Murphy described this practice as getting to know the music “as you would look at a painting before you buy a painting, as you would be able to try on clothing before you purchased it.”
My comments: Looking at a painting is not the same as slapping it on a copy machine and getting yourself a free copy to take home. Now, of course most people will say that a copy of a painting is not a substitute, and anyone that really wanted to buy the painting would not be satisfied with a copy machine version. That is probably true. But in the world of music, our technology has reached the stage that the copies are in fact, in most cases, the same as the original. In the days of cassettes, the quality wasn’t as good, but also the distribution was more limited. At least one person in every social group probably had to buy the record in order for cassettes to get made for a few other people. But in the digital age, it would theoretically be possible for one purchase of a recording to end up replicated for free on the computer of every music lover in the world.
From the article: “Murphy compared her philosophy on the fair use of media content to sharing clothing. “If you buy a shirt, you can lend it to a friend,” she said.”
My Comments: This is the best comment in support of current copyright laws that there is. I agree, if you buy a shirt and want to share it with a friend, you can. Just as if you make a recording and want to share it with whoever, you can - copyright law gives you that right. But the friend cannot MAKE you share the shirt with her, and you cannot force your friend or even a complete stranger to share their shirts with you. They have the right to decide what to do with their shirt, just as copyright owners have the right to decide what to do with their music. And they shouldn’t be forced by law to give it away for free any more than I should be forced by law to hang my wardrobe out on the sidewalk for all to share.
Links of the Day
Band Blogging: How To Release Music Online
A Wiseguy I think is kind of funny
October 28th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Pamela,
First and foremost it concerns me greatly that net neutrality is threatened by many potential laws that corporations are trying to pass. Laws which will prevent artists from receiving airplay in the name of higher royalty payments. Laws which will restrict our access to the people thereby creating the same hierarchy on the Internet that we’ve witnessed in the music industry for years.
I understand my rights as a copyright holder, however the implications of the CRB rate increase run much deeper than my being able to tell people what to do with my music. They will shut down small webcasters who are the main support system for an independent artist like me. They will give control to Soundexchange to negotiate rates to their liking, again establishing a mafia-type of control over the Internet.
For years artists signed to labels have received $1 out of the usual $15 price tag of a CD. Out of that dollar everything gets recouped, including recording costs, music videos, touring costs, the list goes on making it impossible for an artist to generate revenue from the master recordings themselves. Why does it surprise you that artists are prepared to forfeit that dollar to be heard on a wide scale and by as many people as possible? Why wouldn’t artists use the people as their marketing team to spread the word? The number one focus of an independent artist should be to become known, not rich.
Of course it is not my intention for people to sell my music or make a commercial profit from it (unless I choose to align myself with them), nor do I feel threatened or concerned this will happen. A record company could not attempt to do this without checking with me first.
My reference to looking at a painting versus streaming someone’s music is one I feel is accurate. If you take a photo of a painting, will that satisfy you like owning that painting and having it on your wall? If you stream someone’s album, that is not the same as having it in your car and on your iPod and everywhere else you want to place it.
When you purchase a piece of music, you have purchased the right to place that music in all of your various players, in my opinion. To restrict or control someone’s right to use something they bought is unconstitutional, again in my opinion. Digital rights management is an invasion of privacy and creates a lack of trust among people that only enhances the desire to beat the system.
Thank you for your letter.
–
Samantha Murphy
Founder
SMtv Music
http://www.smtvmusic.com
October 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
[…] to a potential audience, and perfectly willing to give away music in exchange for exposure (see my earlier post on Samantha Murphy), if a band believes that New West would actually post their music as a […]