Copyright bill passes Senate – special treatment for commercial radio continues
Eighty government amendments ended up being made to the Copyright Bill, which in broad terms made some worthwhile improvements. The government should get some credit for taking on board at least some of the concerns expressed and fixing up the workability of some sections. However, they also still deserve criticism for such an unnecessarily rushed process.
My effort to enable Australian musicians to be able to earn market value for the broadcasting of their performances by commercial radio failed. Quite why commercial radio needs a free kick is beyond me, especially at the expense of musicians. However, both Labor and the Family First Senator voted to support commercial radio as well, so I can’t just bag the government.
Performers are the only group in the country who have the value of their copyright capped by law, rather than an assessment made of the true market value – either by negotiation with the user, or by determination by the Copyright Tribunal. Despite the government saying it was still their policy to support this, they simply kept saying they were not prepared to proceed with it at this time. (see my previous post for more details on this topic)
For more on all the complexity and detail of the various amendments and their impacts, I recommend you visit this site.
6 Comments, Comment or Ping
Louise
That is disappointing, Senator. But Big Government and Big Business are often in bed together. In this case, at the expense of Aussie musicians.
It’s not good.
Dec 1st, 2006
david spencer
the situation is hopeless, particularly when considered in the light of what could be instituted to take advantage of the current state of media technology.
A friendly legislative and regulatory environment for young artists would have included the early implementation of nationwide secure means of making small transactions online, and more importantly the development of a clear legislative distinction between corporate and individual/collective creation. A manager/distributor/producer does NOT create an artistic work, and should not be able to hold copyright. As long as corporations can behave like enormously powerful and practically immortal ‘people’ in this fashion, acting as a proxy for groups of wealthy people who had no part in the creative process, the copyright system is a farce.
Fundamentally artists – musicians, film-makers, satirists – increasingly don’t need the exploitative industry set up in a different era of production and distribution, while the huge parasitic edifice of the music industry – commercial radio included – remains very much reliant on controlling the profits of existing artists’ work.
This fact governs the still antiquated legislation that privileges the dinosaurs rather than facilitating peer-to-peer production, distribution, and exchange. The problem for many influential in determining policy in this area is how to maintain control of the production of art in an era in which the structures that keep artists shackled to the corporate model have become entirely artificial and unreasonable.
The upshot of the current copyright model is total disillusionment. I’d advocate firstly an honour system for giving money to artists in return for the download of free material, and secondly the encouragement of a vibrant LIVE MUSIC CULTURE, which could provide an income as an adjunct to near-free distribution online.
Dec 8th, 2006
david spencer
o and as an addendum
the honour system mentioned by which small personal gratuities are made online in return for freely downloadable material could also function in a capital-raising mode..
the best example is the hypothetical scenario in which Joss Whedon (writer/director of buffy/angel/firefly) announced he wanted to make a new season of Firefly, or Serenity two, and said he was opening an account or collecting pledges for the capital. It’s my assertion it wouldn’t take too many months to raise the millions necessary. It’s democratic patronage, and a kind of meritocracy based on a high threshold for support and no majorities. It would work – if it worked – because of the size of the potential audience. In this way the tiny percentage of fanatical adherents of a particular cult phenomenon now has the resources and the network to source its own content
this might all seem terribly ad hoc and implausible in a world sold for a century on the idea that the only functional models for commerce and production are those based on mutual rapaciousness…
but from many other periods in history this institutionalised mistrust would be seen as a peculiarity specific to eras of obsessive mercantilism, in which the proponents of the basest human sentiments have been allowed to propagandise unchecked.
Playing games and competing over digging things out of the ground or manufacturing toothpicks or pdas is one thing. But music and films and literature do not conform to the flat-value models used in the peurile resource distribution game that is the preoccupation of the ‘business’ ‘financial’ industrial’ and ‘corporate’ sectors.
While economic benchmarks continue to be applied inappropriately to creative endeavours, and – even worse – an economic PURPOSE is assumed and accepted – those making legislation on issues of ownership and reward will continue to miss the point.
Dec 8th, 2006
lindy morrison
Andrew you made an excellent speech in Parliament on the issue of the cap when you put the amendment, the Hansard is a great read, Thursday 30 Nov http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds301106.pdf p125 – p130;
I did hear you on the night as well. Particularly poignant is your remark that shock jocks income isn’t capped so why should performers income be capped?
Dec 9th, 2006
david spencer
why shouldn’t shock jocks incomes be capped instead? for anyone to earn more than double what anyone else earns is represensible… its a measure of the corruption inherent in our culture that it’s permitted. Laughable to hear people talk about Australia as a classless society or a country of the ‘fair go’ when some people are twice as rich as others.
Obviously Im understating the true state of affairs, because I want to highlight what a thoroughly perverse nation this is that we’re happy to call ourselves egalitarian while paying one person twice what another person gets.
Everybody should get ENOUGH, in a nation this rich. It shouldn’t be an issue. Then after we’ve worked out how to distribute what people need to live on it might be time to look at how people spend their time and whether it’s worthwhile.
Thing is, these two issues should not be related – is it reasonable to punish people through deprivation because the role they’ve chosen is not considered as valuable as others? We might censure a lazy human, but I for one can’t see why my critique should give me the right to take away resources from people I think are not fulfilling a worthwhile purpose…
under these conditions no Member of Parliament or sportsperson or executive would get another cent, ever.
The question of copyright is a farce as long as the issue of income is considered the most important part of producing art. Good creative work comes when you’re not reliant upon it for your next meal… the current system is PRIMITIVE
Dec 11th, 2006