[LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jul 15 23:43:25 UTC 2010


On Thursday 15 July 2010 19:11:22 you wrote:
> I don't normally contribute to the "intellectual property" vrs
> "freedom" threads ... but maybe it is time :)
>
> My simple minded beliefs includes that a "creator" has certain rights
> to his creation. If he/she wants to share (freely) with the rest of
> the world, great. If they think that only people who pay a certain sum
> of money can share it, that's their right as well.

Well, I think it is clear that people are using the word "right" to mean 
different things. Are you meaning what people call Natural rights, or are you 
meaning Legal Rights which some call privileges?

Are these rights you speak of something someone is justified in using force 
against another person to secure? Do all natural rights justify the use of 
force to secure? Legal rights? (Speaking person to person, not state 
enforced.)
>
> And if the creator wants to assign these rights to someone else (ie.
> the RIAA, or whatever) ... well, that's fine as well. After all, it's
> their song/artwork to do with as they wish.

See, can we assign our right to Freedom to someone if we wish? Our right to 
life?
>
> Now, it gets more complicated if someone (like me) has purchased
> something which has "pay for me" rights attached. Again, I have the
> freedom to NOT buy it, listen to it, look at it, etc.

If only. But in keeping with that thought, I propose that anyone who wants to 
look at things that way is held responsible for net letting their works be 
heard / seen in public places of any kind but only in places where the public 
has to pay to enter.

> But if I do buy 
> it, do I have the right to give copies away to anyone? Probably not. I
> think there is an implicit (if not explicit) contract when I make the
> purchase that I not do that.

I don't agree. The law in some places states this though it seems and I will 
do my best to obey the laws where I am. In fact, personally, I think my 
giving copies of someones work to a friend is more valuable to the artist in 
many cases than the value of the copy. So, if they don't want me to work for 
them for free in promoting their music to my friends, I am happy to oblige. 
There are other people making fine music that are happy for me to promote 
them at no cost to themselves and I am happy to do so.
>
> Of course this gets complicated if the artist is long dead, etc. A
> moral question might be: how much do the artist's heirs get to earn
> from their long-dead relative's work?

But this is precisely why the term "Intellectual Property" was coined. To 
answer this vexing question. Just like my heirs should get to enjoy my real 
and personal property after I die as long as it lasts and they do not sell 
it, the theory is that the same should hold for my intellectual property. Any 
thinking to the contrary is a disrespect of private property rights. Well for 
that reason and to make people fuzzy on the completely different laws, terms, 
etc, surrounding the different legal concepts lumped together under the term.
>
> But, really, I think the real problem is that most of the works we are
> all concerned about were released in the pay-me-via-the-RIAA model
> long before the digital and internet distribution channels existed.
> Nor were those channels considered when the original distributions
> were made.

And the real problem is that the deal that was made keeps getting broken by 
the side holding the copyrights. To the point that just recently I read of 
works already in the public domain being taken back and put under copyright.
>
> Hopefully new models (Creative Commons, etc) can cure some of the
> problems in the future. Mind you, new problems will arise!

Here is to that hope coming to pass. New problems certainly will.
>
> And, maybe artists can earn some money in the future as well.

I am sure they will. I am more concerned about artists being able to earn what 
normal folks on the block earn rather than that they be able to run with the 
big boys. (If they can in a sane system, fine.)
> I don't 
> see this via distribution earnings ... rather performance and perhaps
> sponsorships?

http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-footballs/
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-football-jerseys/
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-football-photos/
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-basketballs/
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-baseballs/
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-golf-balls/
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-golf-photos/

Do you see the prices on some of those items? Surely some famous musician can 
put together packages to get in on that game.

How many people would like to be listed as co-executive producers on the next 
album by an artist they like?
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 July 2010 16:43:48 Hartmut Noack wrote:
> >> > resulting change of how people think would simply eliminate the
> >> > concept of IP as we know it today.
> >>
> >> As we know it today - in this I agree...
> >>
> >> best regs,
> >> HZN
> >
> > Hartmut,
> >
> > when you speak of IP, are you speaking of copyrights, patents,
> > trademarks, trade secrets, or some specific combination of them, or all
> > of them?




More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list