Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/University of California, Berkeley/Politics of Digital Piracy (Spring 2013)/Week 13 assignment

Class
We will have a student presentation on the music industry and music file-sharing.

Reading
Group A, please post one question or comment you may have have on the future of the music and entertainment industries, based on what you read in the "Rethinking Music" article.

The article stated that the copyright termination provisions of Section 203 of the Copyright Act will take effect in 2013, and that labels would likely take the issue to the courts - now that we're in 2013, has anything happened in this realm? If not, what do you think will end up happening this year? Kaylaholderbein (talk)

The article explains how digitization is making players rethink the way they make music. Recently, Daft Punk's teaser sample of their new album went viral and different mashups, remixes etc. were produced within hours. Some say that it 's going to help their album sales by creating both suspense and popularity. The idea of a "teaser-sample" was produced in response to a swiftly digitizing music industry. The notion of a teaser seems to be able to boost album sales and at the same time lead to remixes/mashups that could be considered violations of copyright. Can the law evolve as quickly as the industry is responding to digitization? If so what flexible measures are in place? Bearcat223 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

To me, the concept of effectively taxing radio stations for playing music seems misguided. People do not use the radio as a means of skirting paying for music, because they cannot control which songs they hear. However, they are prone to purchase music after discovering it through radio stations. The counterargument is that popular, oldies hits do not require or benefit from such advertising. This rebuttal does not account for marketing to new generations, which may not have been exposed to the song when it first came out- oftentimes, before they were born. Additionally, people who may have owned the record at one time but since lost it may be encouraged to re-purchase it in a digitized form. (Editingcontent2 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)).

This paper makes me wonder the necessity of big music publishers and how their role will change in the coming years. Already publishers play a significantly different role than they did 15 years ago as compact discs have essentially become nonexistent, but with the increasing flux of digital distribution services it seems that the need for a "publisher" becomes less and less, particular as live performances become a more significant revenue stream for artists. Given the trend of the last decade, it seems to me that creative artists will gradually shift away from publishing their music through large companies and will instead choose to publish their works independently, thus utilizing digital distribution systems (such as iTunes) in a way that allows them to maximize the profit from their music sales, instead of giving away a large percentage to their publisher. Gloudas (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The article says that "it is important to strike a balance between allowing for the creativity of remixers and compensating the initial artists," so what do you think are the options legally available to strike this balance? Or is it necessary to implement the laws to create this balance?Pringles012 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The paper emphasizes a crucial action that all individual and organizational entities need to take in regard to the current development in the entertainment industry, that is to constantly "rethink" music. Through various court cases and controversies, the paper demonstrates many resistance, especially from large corporations the currently hold monopoly in production and distribution of music, to new technological development and advances in the music industry that allow users and artists to interact directly with one another. This is a normal reaction when one's benefits are greatly threatened. However, policymakers need to take this into consideration and strive to balance private goods with public goods through allowing more mechanisms for innovations while restricting those that profit a group of people at the expense of the public. Pphan1991 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider a service such as Spotify, which is aimed at consumers as opposed to producers, to be a viable framework for a similar system designed for clearing samples on a commercial scale? Would you consider such a service to fall under the category of a centralized sample clearinghouse? Is this a viable alternative, or does the innately complex nature of copyright law prevent such a service from ever being able to come to fruition?IanElli (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Current Events
Group B, please post your current events below.

http://torrentfreak.com/cispa-anyone-exposing-pirates-a-the-u-s-government-130422/ Tigstep (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)tigstep

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-22/e-books-sony-music-glaxo-ibm-intellectual-property.html Radeonhead (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

http://torrentfreak.com/prolific-bittorrent-uploader-faces-jail-time-in-sweden-130423/ (DKINGG)