[LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?

[drew Roberts]

On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:29:11 Al Thompson wrote:
> On 02/10/2013 10:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > You are not stealing anything from the creator. They had that control
> > before they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public
> > realm, they gave up that ability. Copyright law tries to pretend that
> > they have such control still and provides penalties (and in my mind, way
> > out of proportion penalties) for excercising what we would otherwise be
> > free to do in the natural world, but nothing is stolen from anyone in
> > this situation. Unless perhaps copyright law steals our Freedom?
>
> Is it your contention that a property owner gives up all rights to his
> own property once he lets someone else see or hear it??

See, your first mistake is to describe the person as a property owner without 
qualifications.

Second, I do not speak of private, contracted "showings" but rather of 
publication.
>
> I think you are missing the point of a copyright.

The point of copyright is to pervert this natural way of things. To give a 
government protectecd monopoly where none would normally exist. I get the 
point quite clearly.

And in this brave new internet connected world, I get that it cannot hope to 
work without gutting freedom of speech and perhaps democracy itself.

The draconian situation we have today is still not good enough to protect the 
works of the big copyright holders to their satisfaction. Open your eyes and 
look at they laws they are asking for and often getting.

> An owner doesn't give 
> up his rights to his property unless he releases it into the public
> domain.  Even if he agrees to license it for sale or use, he still
> retains his rights to distribution or use.  If, for example, someone
> wants to license his song to use for a commercial, he can say no.  If
> someone wants to record a song he has written, the owner can either say
> no, or else be compensated by a licensing fee.  If a band member writes
> a song for his band, he will receive royalties for the use of that song.

I know that is how copyright law sets things up to work. And look how borked 
the situation is.
>
> I'm a proponent of releasing music under alternative terms, but that
> should be up to the owner, not the consumer.  After all, to most
> consumers, they would obviously prefer that EVERYTHING be free.

So, you are whistling a new tune in your room with the windows open. Jack is 
walking by and hears some of it. It is catchy and he starts to whistle it as 
he walks along. John standing at the bus stop a few blocks away hears it as 
Jack passes. He too starts whistling the melody. He gets on the bus 
whistling. All of the bus riders hear at. When they get off the bus at their 
various stops they whistle it. Etc. In the absence of copyright law, do you 
really think you have some power or right to prevent this situation? Some 
right to be compensated by all of these people whistling without your 
permission?

Oh, and by the way, to my ignorant understanding, if you hadn't yet written 
down what you were whistling when Jack heard, you don't get to copyright it. 
Oops. (I say ignorant as it may only happen if you perform it in public 
first. Etc.)

all the best,

drew