In a world fueled by money, one has to wonder why media corporations and record companies bother to prosecute most “copywrite violators.” In cases such as that of Stephanie Lenz (the mother who posted a clip of her baby dancing to a poor recording), the video will not prevent record companies from making money on the song. That is, no one would find the song clip to be such an acceptable substitute that they would refrain from buying the song.
Girl Talk creator Gregg Gillis has admittedly sampled many popular songs. But while he has used the intellectual property of others, no one is going to stop from buying the original songs. In many cases of individuals basing artwork off of the work of other individuals, the original piece is still being sold and is still profitable to artist and the artist’s company.
As such, one must wonder why record companies would spend thousands or millions on lawsuits in order to prosecute someone who is probably not detracting from their business. Are they spiteful? Proving a point? Given that many so-called violators are ordinary citizens, record companies could not possibly expect huge monetary settlements out of them. In short, record companies waste time and money prosecuting people who are not harming them.
Furthermore, one might argue that all music, film, etc. is in some way based on past work. In this day and age, it is nearly impossible to create something completely and totally original. Therefore, it is rather hypocritical of record labels and music companies to prosecute artists for plagiarism while it is probable that their own artists have in some way plagiarized other artists.
To sum up, I think it is completely ridiculous that record companies hypocritically waste time and money trying to crush something that is doing them no harm.
-JB
I completely agree with what you have written. Record companies typically lose money when they prosecute individuals for using their clients’ music without legal permission. If anything, I would think, that using a clip from another’s song would only encourage others to seek out that specific song. For instance, when I hear a clip from a song that I am unfamiliar with but enjoy, I find that song and buy it. In a way, such remixes serve a similar function as sampling a song online, which is not illegal as far as I know, yet the remixes are. So in the end, the artist and record label earn money from the remix, if anything, and the remix artist is able to promote his/her creatively legally. In terms of Lessig’s Creative Commons, the remixer would not even be earning anything but popularity for his/her creativity. I agree with allowing artists to use the songs of others, as long as there is some way of citing the songs within the remix, so all artists get credit where it is due.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it seems absurd for record labels and music companies to be spending millions of dollars on expensive lawsuits to prosecute most “copyright offenders.” It is counterintuitive for these companies to do such actions because they are losing a lot of money in the process. Profits would not be reduced as much if they just let some of the “offenders,” especially the ones like Stephanie Lenz, slide. I believe there must be some other motive behind their madness. Perhaps, like you said, they are trying to send a message to all copyright offenders that if they break the law they will be prosecuted. In this regards, they may be saving money. I for one stopped downloading music illegally once I heard of the thousands of downloaders who were being sued in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. It would be interesting to see how many other people are like me and were “scared off” by the threats of lawsuits. Possibly, if this number were high enough, the record companies might not be losing as much money as we think with these expensive lawsuits.
ReplyDelete