Who's Music Is It Anyway?

Information is a term that broadly encompasses raw data, facts, figures and cognitive expression in a physical or tangible form. A public good is a thing of value shared by all people, however within that categorisation there exists restrictions imposed by law in using some information. In this submission I will be addressing the issue of copyright on information and its effect on music as a public good.

Essentially information is the physical expression of knowledge. Once information enters the creative commons- “A commons of knowledge- a free exchange of ideas and information about how the net, and code that runs on the net, runs.” (Flew T. 2008) it becomes commercially valuable and therefore a public good and copyrightable.

Copyright is a restriction placed upon a public good. The copyright ensures exclusive ownership of the information to the creator, and stops others from using the information unless certain things occur. One alternative is the author is credited for their work , or some form of reimbursement for the use of the information, and example of this is royalties paid in the music industry. Within in the music industry “Copyright protection is free and applies automatically when material is created.” (Australian Copyright Council 2009). Quite interestingly copyright within the music industry can belong to two parties, as the music can be represented in both literary work or the musical work itself, E.g. Songwriter and music artist. The music as a whole once it enters the creative commons becomes a public good. Due to the copyright, the music must either be paid for or referenced to the creator, as previously stated.

Within the music industry, the major watchdog which ensures that individuals within Australia comply with copyright law is the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA). APRA and other regulatory bodies like it monitor the use of music within the creative commons, ensuring that music is paid for by end users. This issue has become quite a controversial issue in modern a time due to the general public perception that music is a public good which isn’t often paid for, with most users ripping or burning music for friends. This essentially taps into one of the central debates surrounding copyright and the creative commons.

It is argued that without reward how can those who create things of public value survive without wealth generation. The opposing argument to this argues that by restricting information within the creative commons, we are inhibiting further creativeness itself, “We as a society should favour the disruptive, they will produce movement toward a more efficient, prosperous economy” (Flew T. 2008). The current precedent is to prosecute offenders, however increasingly this is proving ineffective, as the music has already become a public good and very clearly shared by many people.

Not all creative artists who publish work within the digital commons are adverse to sharing their work. In 2001 the Creative Commons was established created by Lawrence Lessig. Previously there was no avenue for creative people to let people know what work they were willing to share. This not for profit organisation, allows members to exchange information under a few licenses that apply, these licenses are listed below;

Attribution: Whenever a work is copied or redistributed under a Creative Commons licence, credit must always be given to the creator. (Creative Commons 2009)

Non-commercial: Let people use work, but not for commercial purposes. (Creative Commons 2009)

No Derivative Works: Lets others use work but only verbatim copies, not derivative works based upon it. (Creative Commons 2009)

Share Alike: Allows others to distribute derivative works only under a licensee identical to the licensee that governs your work. (Creative Commons 2009)

The creative commons allows for creativity to grow in many industries. An example of this is in the music industry, an individual is able to sample a certain percentage of another person’s work, and remix over the top of it or use it for some purpose for their own purposes. This use of a free public good promotes creativity for the small cost of giving attribution or following one of the other licenses.

Ultimately any form of music recorded and released into the wider community is a public good, copyright has limited influence on the accessibility of this information within the digital commons. This public perception of music as a free public good, may result in the death of the music industry as it is known today.

References
1. Flew, Terry. 2008. New Media an introduction; pg 66-68
2. Australian Copyright Council, www.copyright.org.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)
3. Australasian Performing Right Association , www.apra-amcos.com.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)
4. Creative Commons, www.creativecommons.org.au (Accessed 11 Nov 2009)