Login / Register
 
Piracy Is Personal - Tell Your Story Here
Subscribe
#31
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #31
Lives for gear
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 599

cyrano is offline
The Internet is not so much about content. It's about communities. The example on YouTube succeeded because they have a lot of followers...

Facebook thrives on user submitted content. They have zero content of their own.

That's the challenge for the music industry. Creating communities. To me, as an outsider it seems fairly easy. You just need a good concept. Why are the big music cies not better at building communities? They were very good at plugging their music on radio and TV. Is it because they'd rather make money from abusing their customers?
rack gear
Thread Starter
#32
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #32
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
I've run my own studio for 15 years and I've seen the devastation that piracy has wrought on musicians, studios, labels and anyone associated with music being created for people to consume.

I came up with this list; it's not copyrighted, so take or use it for whatever you wish


Canard: You never lost revenue from a sale that never existed.

Reality: Unless you can say that you never would have bought every song you illegally downloaded, you're just rationalizing. There are plenty of ways to audition music on the web. You don't need to illegally download an entire record to your ipod from rapidshare to decide if you like it or not.


Canard: I'm only taking digital bits. 0s and 1s.

Reality: When someone shoplifted a record, were they only stealing plastic?


Canard: It's not theft, because when I take it, you still have it.

Reality: When some one counterfeits money, you still have your money, but it isn't worth as much. They've stolen the value of your currency.


Canard: Going after illegal downloading is whack a mole.

Reality: All law enforcement is whack a mole.


Canard: If bands made better music we would buy more.

Reality: If the music is so bad, why are you downloading it?


Canard: The majority buy the stuff after downloading it.

Reality: No, they don't. Music sales have been in a steep steady decline since Napster was first introduced.


Canard: Bands make most of their money on touring and merch.

Reality: And that's not much anymore. And it's because people take their music without paying for it. Bands used to make money selling records. Now many can't afford to tour or even make records anymore.


Canard: Record labels need to figure out a new business model.

Reality: Record labels have been trying for the past 10 years to figure out a solution. But there is no business model that can be based around theft.


Canard: Art is not business.

Reality: Nothing is free. Everything takes time and/or money to make.


Canard: We're dreaming of the major record companies going bankrupt.

Reality: And then what? You'll stop taking music illegally? No, then you'll take it from indie labels. And then just the bands themselves.


Canard: What about all those poor buggy whip factories that went out of business when the automobile came along?

Reality: Music making hasn't been replaced. It's still for sale. It's just that you can illegally take it without fear of being caught. The analogy makes zero sense.


Canard: The war on illegal downloading is like Prohibition or the drug war.

Reality: The analogy makes zero sense. Those were items that were illegal to sell. It's not illegal to sell music.


Most importantly, hopefully you understand that illegal theft hurts the musicians and those, like me, that try to make good music for you to enjoy.
great post - welcome.
#33
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Gary Ladd's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Preparing to escape New York...
Posts: 706

Gary Ladd is offline
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Radio, online or otherwise, has to pay royalties.
Haha! Online "Pirate" radio stations paying royalties

Another Whack-A-Mole phenom I'm afraid...

#34
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #34
Gear maniac
 
Gearhero's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 274

Gearhero is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
I not only think it's cool, I think it's the vengeance my personal God is wreaking on anyone and everyone who ever put me down, ignored me, dissed me, or questioned my potential or my abilities.

See, that's the one advantage of following the irrational, senseless instincts that got me where I am today-- the absence of any need to cry out to the Heavens to rescue me from the cruel Fates or the bitter march of Progress. And believe me-- I faced a whole Greek chorus of naysayers who were determined to convince me I was insane and would end up groveling and broke.

So, maybe gloating is not the most graceful posture, and I am sympathetic to you guys... but I say hand me the marshmallows.
That's the best comeback I've read on GS in ages.
#35
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #35
Gear maniac
 
Gearhero's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 274

Gearhero is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkon View Post
my signed and released music is avalaible on file sharing networks , bit torrents and on youtube without my permission and I get no money

I cry in the fetal position every night when I think about how I have been violated ............

Arkon, did you just pirate that clip?
#36
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,353

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francomania View Post
As stated in the preceding paragraph, one of the facets is the ACQUISITION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, ILLEGALLY!. To be used to gain economic advantage, thus to PROFIT from an ILLEGAL Act. Piracy is the acquisition of Intellectual Property illegally, without PAYING for it. Youtube, obtain illegally intellectual property that DID NOT belong to it, whereby YOUTUBE profited immensely.
You and John both make the mistake of considering piracy to be theft of intellectual property. It isn't. Consider what happens when you release a song. You publish it. That is, you make it available in the public domain. You don't own it any more. You can't prevent anyone from listening to it. You give up the traditional ownership rights in exchange for the right to control copying of the work for a limited period. It's not your intellectual property any more.
#37
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #37
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 23

colourform is offline
no what all the good online radio stations do is basically make you agree to creative commons (so they get it all for free ) and if you dont no airplay.You then have to hope some of their listeners buy cds.I am not sure if they do , i get the feeling as the radio shows are just playing music over and over again that people just listen in.People will eventually need so much hd space , its odvious many are just not even collecting mp3 , they are just ' listening ' for free .

Prs ? mcps ? whata joke.Its peoples mentalities.I see labels selling mp3 albums for $5 ???wtf ?>?? what does that say about the work time and effort and value of the art on it ? i think what happened is the music industry got f......by the computer industry and then f...itself by playing to this whole cheap ideaology and comsumer mentality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Ladd View Post
Haha! Online "Pirate" radio stations paying royalties

Another Whack-A-Mole phenom I'm afraid...
#38
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #38
Gear addict
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 348

Matt Allison is offline
LOL @ Don.

I have to say I'm constantly amazed at the apparent lack of education many of the pirates seem to exhibit. I'm not just referring to the notorious bad spelling they're known for, but the apparent inability to understand the most basic tenets of logic.

I think this is one of the reasons that, once real laws are in place, reducing them to a percentage a little above the historical average for bootlegging won't be particularly difficult.
rack gear
Thread Starter
#39
8th October 2010
Old 8th October 2010
  #39
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
You and John both make the mistake of considering piracy to be theft of intellectual property. It isn't. Consider what happens when you release a song. You publish it. That is, you make it available in the public domain. You don't own it any more. You can't prevent anyone from listening to it. You give up the traditional ownership rights in exchange for the right to control copying of the work for a limited period. It's not your intellectual property any more.
you are wrong, and it is theft.

Piracy Is Theft - Explained Legally

here's the easy to understand version:

soulstudios
#40
8th October 2010
Old 8th October 2010
  #40
soulstudios
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by arkon View Post
the analogy is actually

Criminalizing difficult to enforce social behaviors rarely lead to reduction of the illegal behavior

Example = Downloading is illegal , People want to do it anyway , Laws cant be enforced , Piracy continues

Example = Taking drugs is illegal , People want to do it anyway , Laws can not be enforced , Drug taking continues

Example = Adultery is illegal , People want to do it anyway , Laws can not be enforced , adultery continues
Actually, it almost always leads to a reduction. You're confusing reduction with absolute halt.
#41
8th October 2010
Old 8th October 2010
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,353

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Obviously you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, what it means to publish a song or the meaning of the terms "public domain", "intellectual property", or "copyright".

I suggest that you study up on what the issues are and the terms mean (they are technical terms with set definitions - you don't get to define them however you want) before you embarrass yourself further.
John,
I am not a lawyer, so I obtained the opinion of one. Calling a copyrighted, published work "intellectual property" does not make it so. Somewhere in the chaos I laughingly refer to as my filing system I have a list of US statutes which cover the situation. I will hopefully be able to find them this weekend.

To give you something to think about meanwhile, you say I have no idea of the correct definition of terms such as "public domain". In fact I do, and I was very careful to word my use of the term. I said "In the public domain" which does not mean "public domain" as most people think of it. Perhaps you would do me the favour of reading my original post a little more carefully. (I will acknowledge that it was written to elicit the response it has received.)
#42
8th October 2010
Old 8th October 2010
  #42
Gear addict
 
audibell's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 324

audibell is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
You and John both make the mistake of considering piracy to be theft of intellectual property. It isn't. Consider what happens when you release a song. You publish it. That is, you make it available in the public domain. You don't own it any more. You can't prevent anyone from listening to it. You give up the traditional ownership rights in exchange for the right to control copying of the work for a limited period. It's not your intellectual property any more.
Au contraire, my friend, you might wish this was the way but if you investigate a bit more you will find that since the time when George Frederic Handel got screwed by his music engraver, it has been public policy in countries where property rights are esteemed, that creators should enjoy the fruits of their labors, intellectual as well as back-breaking. You might find something useful in our submission to the IPEC in March this year, which details what we thought should be done then, to halt the destruction of an entire industry.

The COICA Internet Censorship and Copyright Bill | Electronic Frontier Foundation

It seems someone up there read it.

IPEC Filing - Stop Music Theft

Collectivists, of course, won't agree with any of this; rather like offering a class in property rights from a Marxist, as some law schools are wont to do.
regds
WalterT
#43
8th October 2010
Old 8th October 2010
  #43
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 23

colourform is offline
The availability of music on radio never hurt sales of recorded music one bit.

until now ! your totally missing the point , trends have changed .People now consume free music in realtime.The shows sometimes pay a fee but its 1% of a cd sale.The trend is toward free listening in realtime.The only people buying music are collectors of cds or the rare few who buy mp3.The rest just share via usb sticks.I watched this now for a few years between a large group of freinds.The same freinds bought cds and vinyl a few years back.Many are in debt due to global economic issues , rent increases and housing booms and power and water bill increases aswell as petrol and when you combine things you see

Humans with less money , with a free mechanism to share music , with less desire for physical products , who see music as a commodity now to be consumed in bulk and who can dial up radio shows for free and listen when they need to.And this is what 80% of my freinds now do.They gave up buying music as they had no money ! and they could get it for free ! Doesnt economics on a world wide basis factor in ?

.Piracy is the tip of the iceberg.The death of a music industry is down to the computer industry and a managed shift toward portable device sales by certain companies and a forcing of music into that format for their own shareholders gains and sales of the hardware ' music consumer units ' .I believe apple along with others hijacked the music industry and killed off many small labels and only those with large catalogues can now survive.Slowly music becomes cheaper and then up pops spotify and others , free music and free tracks and what does it set ? a downward sales trend where we get cheaper and cheaper music and the last remaining format for some labels becomes no viable due to the cheapness of the product ( a file in thin air )

Pirates ? the real pirates are the big companies who profitted from this change of format and downgrading of music to a file on a drive and the trashing of musical quality and its integrity.

The real idoits are those labels who bought into mass mp3 sales , who did not support their physical product and who have become like free net labels on rapid release of bland watered down art for mass consumption.

The trend is not and evolution of quality of sound or product , its a degarding of product into mass comsumed media and for macs benefit and steve jobs retirement fund.Thats whats killing musicians and labels , not pirates/ ( though they are part of it !)

Piracy actually benefits business like Apple as they sell more hd and more of everything they sell.Also suits sony and cdr makers.Look a little wider !
rack gear
Thread Starter
#44
8th October 2010
Old 8th October 2010
  #44
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
piracy, blah, blah, blah... mass litigation is where it's at and it's working so well pirates are resorting to terrorists acts... won't get much sympathy there....

Anti-Piracy Working : Pirates Resort to Bomb Threats

the bottom line is, someone on the content side has figured out how to make money from piracy, and it's working - letters are going out, money is coming in, torrent activity on targeted titles is dropping and sales are increasing.

pretty much, win, win, win, win...

oh and the best part, it costs the copyright holders nothing - the lawyers take on all the upfront expenses. there's just nothing like getting paid while fighting piracy.

carry on.
#45
8th October 2010
Old 8th October 2010
  #45
Gear Head
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 42

S. Melmoth is offline
Yes, piracy can be a problem for labels, musicians, etc, but sometimes is does have some benefits. A couple of years ago I was looking for new artists to listen to, found a label with bands I liked, and found a random artist I had never heard of, and downloaded his CD. I fell in love with the CD and found out he was touring a small club near me. So my girlfriend and I paid for two tickets ($30.00 each), once inside the show bought one vinyl ($20.00), two shirts ($15.00 each) and later on in the year bought the artists newest release ($10.00). The vinyl I bought was the same album I downloaded and I received a free digital download with purchase of the vinyl. So that's $105 dollars for the artist and the label. I think it worked out for them quite well and I'm sure many people have had similar experiences.

For small artists, piracy can be the best exposure at times, sometimes not. In this case I think it worked out just fine.
#46
13th October 2010
Old 13th October 2010
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,353

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkon View Post
hahahaha!

I have absolute faith youtube are paying the correct royalties to jim carey and his associates
Wanna buy a bridge?
#47
13th October 2010
Old 13th October 2010
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,353

Don Hills is offline
(I'm replying to Walter's post, but it applies equally to John.) I apologise to you all, you're right. I managed to completely miss the context in which copyright was being discussed. My remarks were from a discussion I had several years ago regarding control over one's work once it was published, conflated with the results of a discussion with my lawyer about the terms in a motion picture actor's contract that I had to sign on behalf of my daughter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audibell View Post
Au contraire, my friend, you might wish this was the way but if you investigate a bit more you will find that since the time when George Frederic Handel got screwed by his music engraver, it has been public policy in countries where property rights are esteemed, that creators should enjoy the fruits of their labors, intellectual as well as back-breaking. You might find something useful in our submission to the IPEC in March this year, which details what we thought should be done then, to halt the destruction of an entire industry.
I'm a supporter of the argument that creators are entitled to "the fruits of their labors", whether material or intellectual. I don't happen to agree with the length of copyrght protection, though. I don't see why the term of protection for copyrighted works should be longer than the term of protection for patented works, for example. Changing the subject hurriedly, is this report being discussed anywhere on the forum? I've been "out of town" and could have missed it. CLIR Report
#48
13th October 2010
Old 13th October 2010
  #48
Gear maniac
 
Bending_Bus's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 156

Bending_Bus is offline
The thing the individual did not figure when they said "the internet is so cool, now I can have this waaay cool art, for free" is that the quality of the art produced would decline slooowly over time to equal the price paid.

The results of that now exist. New risky artist development, fronting money for world tours, fronting money for the ideal production, that is lost when the financiers leave the building. It is humorous how we all complained about the labels, it was far from perfect, but without financing, without possible income, the music suffers.

The only reason the quality will never go to zero, even though the price paid does, is because artists themselves will fund it for the love of doing it, and take the financial loss. That would be me.
__________________
bendingbus.com
#49
13th October 2010
Old 13th October 2010
  #49
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: Memphis
Posts: 844

rhizomeman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by music monk View Post
I release an album on tuesday and by wednesday its available for free via a google search. tell me how on earth that is a good thing for anyone but the people stealing it?
No time to read every post but...In answer to your query, free music can also be viewed as advertising for your band and your hard work - regardless of whether you want it to be free. You are assuming every free download is a lost sale - this is simply not true. Many people, MANY people, might just ignore your music if it was not free.
#50
13th October 2010
Old 13th October 2010
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: BC
Posts: 949

Id Ridden is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
So, at risk of repeating myself for the billionth time - - everyone who releases an album is in 'a band' and looking to promote that 'band'?
dont forget health too...life doesnt afford everyone with the available health to relentlessy tour or do shows...
#51
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #51
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,773

atma is offline
i blame the Somalians.
#52
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #52
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: Memphis
Posts: 844

rhizomeman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
So, at risk of repeating myself for the billionth time - - everyone who releases an album is in 'a band' and looking to promote that 'band'?
Not sure what you mean by this - could you explain...

There are obviously many sonic art forms that have nothing to do with "bands"
#53
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,353

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It has to do with the fact that return on copyright is generally a lot slower than the return on manufactured items*. Also patent is shorter to facilitate accelerated technical progress. There are other reasons as well.
I hadn't considered it that way. It makes sense. Thanks.

I download a lot of music. I delete almost all of it after one listen, I don't see the sense in keeping something I don't like and am never going to listen to again. If I like it, I seek out a paid version of it, even if I have to get it from somewhere like Amazon Germany and pay up to US$45 for it. I struggle with my conscience on rare and/or obscure items, for example those released in a small vinyl run and never reissued on CD. But even there I don't give up. For example, a friend once gave me a mix tape with a track by Chrome on it. It took 20 years, but it was eventually reissued on CD.

So the problem, for me anyway, is that in many cases the work is no longer "in print". With recorded copies of works, part of the intent of copyright is to make the work available in perpetuity. As it stands at the moment, if the copyright owner chooses not to make any copies available, the work is effectively unavailable. If there is a legal requirement to pay for copies of the work while it is in copyright, there should perhaps be a requirement for copies to be available for purchase. Digital distribution would make this practical and cost effective. I think I've read a similar proposal somewhere in these forums in the last few days.
rack gear
Thread Starter
#54
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #54
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Chrome were friends of mine. Damon Edge married the singer of the band I toured with in the US and Europe and I did many gigs with Helios Creed after Chrome broke up.

I do hope you purchased a legitimate copy so my friends could get paid. Every little bit helps.......
Cleopatra Records era?
#55
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,353

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Chrome were friends of mine. Damon Edge married the singer of the band I toured with in the US and Europe and I did many gigs with Helios Creed after Chrome broke up.

I do hope you purchased a legitimate copy so my friends could get paid. Every little bit helps.......
It's a small world. Degrees of separation, and all that...

Yes, I have a legitimate copy. Almost all of my friends are in the "business" - film and radio producers, actors, musicians, technicians. I'm somewhat unusual in being in IT. I didn't develop my habit of "legitimising" my collection from them, though. I've always gained a certain satisfaction in owning "the real thing", especially where the artist has gone to some extra trouble to make it special. The Rolling Stones' "Sticky Fingers" with the real zipper in the cover, a Motorhead album with real leather cover, Jethro Tull's "Thick As A Brick" with the newspaper cover, the Small Faces' "Ogden's Nut Gone Flake" CD in a real tobacco tin, and latterly many of Tool's releases.

Something for any reader of this post to ponder - how many musicians do you know who wouldn't rip a copy of someone elses CD but use cracked plugins? And how often have you picked up a magazine in a bookstore, read an article and put the magazine back on the rack?
#56
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #56
Lives for gear
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 599

cyrano is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I started a thread about this.

Apart from a philosophical debate, I really can't see how 'length of copyright' hurts more than a handful of creative people.
In my long experience, both as a musician and a music consumer, I can't think of any instance where copyright entered my brain because of some negative experience I'd had.
Over the course of this debate I've seen numerous people bring up the subject of copyright, especially when supporting the free sharing lobby. I've yet to see anyone prove their own creativity or financial income has been harmed in any way.
It hurts ALL of us. Before, after a number of years after the death of the creator, everything went to the public domain. A company holding rights to ip will never die, ergo, the ip will never go to the public domain. This is bad for our collective cultural heritage.
#57
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,353

Don Hills is offline
#58
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #58
Lives for gear
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 599

cyrano is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Again, this is a vague general point, especially as you haven't provided any evidence to back it up.
You are talking to someone who has been full time involved in the writing and performance of music for thirty years.
I have never come across an attitude in all that time that the 'public domain' was important, or that copyright was damaging 'cultural heritage'.
I just haven't.
I'm trying to understand this, but if all I hear is the blogger's words repeated, and no actual real world evidence, it's hard for me to grasp the concept.
This one is from the University of Kiel, Germany and deals with the importance of having scientific data in the public domain to prevent loss:
http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/ifmgeomar...Dataowners.pdf

The Open Public Domain database will explain how it became much harder to find out if a work was in the public domain since 2005:
Public Domain Works | Open Knowledge Foundation

How it becomes harder to archive old newspaper articles to keep them for future generations:
Actualized Preservation Threats: Practical Lessons from Chronicling America

The value of the public domain, by Rufus Pollock:
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economic...omain.ippr.pdf

I'm not saying you should read all of this. Maybe one or two will do.

I can summarize the importance of the public domain very simply: if rights to any ip belong to a company, some day they will become commercially obsolete. And the company will have no incentive to publish them. So they will become unavailable. Transferring the ip to the public domain will safeguard this loss.

Imagine if some publisher was still holding the rights to Shakespeare's work. Do you think it would still be available today? Perhaps, but what about these thousands of other, obsolete works?
#59
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,353

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
...
On the second link, I'm not even going to look as Blogs are worthless in this debate. I'm about actual working experience, not the political football that copyright seems to have become.
Sticking your fingers in your ears won't help. You won't win by passing laws. You need to win the hearts and minds of the people you see as your enemies, and you can't do that without understanding their point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
...
A miniscule amount of creators are interested in weakening current copyright law. A huge amount, including creators of all ages and types, have just successfully won extended copyright rights in the UK and European parliaments.
Nice foot-shot. That'll sure encourage people not to copy your works.
#60
14th October 2010
Old 14th October 2010
  #60
Lives for gear
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 599

cyrano is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But, political theory aside, we pay for libraries to purchase and preserve intellectual works. This is where we can find the old Blues recordings of the 1920's and 30's, and the complete works of Shakespeare.

Are we proposing creativity such as painting becomes public domain?
No, we fund art galleries to spend multiple millions on a Picasso so it can be 1) preserved properly and 2) viewed by the general public.
Yet they are in the public domain...

Paintings in a museum are somewhat of an exception. Legally, you could photograph them, but flashes damage paintings, so you're not allowed to do that.

And you can't count on public libraries to be the keepers of the archive. Books wear out and get sold/thrown out when they become less popular. That's another reason why the public domain is extremely important. Once it's in the public domain, anyone can archive it.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Sean TM / So much gear, so little time!
167
Entrainer / Music Business
9
backplay / The Moan Zone
54

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.