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

[drew Roberts]

On Tuesday 12 February 2013 18:08:36 Al Thompson wrote:
> On 02/12/2013 10:12 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
> > As for your question, as to how will people make a living who do IP only?
> > Consider an analogy which is brought up often.
> > Say, there is a culture where women are being forced to marry men that
> > their
> > family chooses. As you know, in many countries around the world in the
> > past
> > this was standard stuff.
> > And now imagine someone saying that this is wrong and brings in his
> > argumentation.
> > And someone says - well, then how will my sister get married?
> >
> > Or if you are against slavery, someone will tell you - well, then how
> > will the work
> > in this country be done if there are no slaves? Who will want to do it?
> >
> > The real question is - I don't know. All I know is that forced
> > marriage/slavery/copyright are wrong and here are
> > my arguments.
> > I don't see a problem with that position.
>
> The difference is that in your marriage example, and in slavery, the
> person is forced against his will to comply.  The woman is forced into
> it, the slave is also forced.
>
> Work will get done when those who need the work will pay a reasonable wage.
> Women will get married when they find someone to whom they are attracted
> and who is attracted to them.
>
> A composer is not forced.

Untrue.

1. He gets a copyright whether he wants one or not. He is forced to have one 
and he must make an effort to counteract this.

If copyright only existed when applied for and registered, it would not be 
nearly as nasty.

2. A person can lawfully force a song writer to license his work to him for a 
cover. He cannot refuse. (At least in some places. Do we have any laws that 
force a person to let a member of the public use his car?)

> He can choose how to release his works.  He 
> can copyright them and expect to profit from any sales, or he can
> release into the public domain and expect nothing.  Or, he can release
> using one of the alternate licensing schemes and hope that people will
> compensate him for his property.

You always assume copyright law to justify copyright law and how the world 
works. You need to image no copyright law and describe how things would 
naturally work. (Well, you obviously don't have to but if you only argue A is 
right because we have a law that lets us do A, you are not going to convince 
many whoe think A may not be right in the first place.
>
> It's not too unlike a guy who pays for materials and training, and then
> builds a house.  In deciding what to do with his house, he can:
>
> 1) charge people $500/month to live in it
> 2) let people live in it for free
> 3) tell people that they can live in it and give him some money if they
> want to and can afford it

It is completely different. You want the person to be able to prevent another 
person from buying his own materials and piece of land and build a copy of 
the the house.
>
> > As pointed out on my site, producing IP is necessary. How will people
> > get paid?
> > In various different ways. Just like they get paid now. In Russia
> > copyright law is
> > not enforced that much, yet Russia has scientists, composers, actors
> > and movie directors.
> > So they must be getting paid somehow.
>
> How much of this is still state-sponsored in Russia?

all the best,

drew