13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
6:13 p.m.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 11:37:03 Paul Davis wrote:
it is necesssary and important to differentiate between what the law
requires and what technology implies.
Don't forget to include what morals / ethics require / permit.
in your scenario, you cannot release to the public without giving up
control of your work. so how is this not the case?
Are you worried about control or possible income? So long as you can make a
decent income, why would you insist on control of what others can do with
what they hear or purchase?
not the movie! the score, or the costume design, or the FX used in the 7th
scene. did cameron pay me enough for the score before it came out? maybe,
maybe not.
Well, why give it to him before he has paid you enough. Why must we limit
ourselves to doing business the way we have for the last X years when the
world has changed?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
Fine, but if it is a way that works and does not require the draconian
copyright laws we have today to support the creators, where is the problem
with it.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis
wrote:
that constitutes a private audience, with the twist that it is an audience
willing to pay for the work even before it is complete. conceptually, this
is no different than the patronage system that has supported artists for
centuries. it is still patronage, but just crowd sourced. On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
"leak"
One would presumably not release the work to the
public until one had
gotten a
fair return on one's labour.
that implies only a private audience (and one contract-bound to not the work) until one reached whatever one deemed a
fair return.
Not at all, perhaps we are going to have to go to something like
kickstarter /
indiegogo for funding to initial release for some.
> Perhaps things will work just fine as they seem to in the fashion
> industry.
Casn you speak to this point?
which in turn implies the notion that to get a
larger return requires a
public release that (in what I perceive as your worldview) in turn
implies
abandoment of any ability to restrict access to
or use of one's work
(even
though one might still get paid something for
it).
In actuality, one already gives up this ability as can be seen from the
constant cries of "piracy" killing the industry. they are quite different. technology
has created the scenario in which digital copying is a fact of life, and we
must all deal with that. copyright (and other related) law did not create
that scenario and at present is powerless to prevent it.
And so, let's snoop on everyone 24x7 and put the death penalty on copyright
violation in an effort to preserve the old business models. (I know you are
not saying this, I am takign it there in this point.) No. It is time to move
on and find other funding models or let the arts move to a hobby zone and not
a profession zone.
Again. If the choice is freedom and democracy vs. copyright law, I know which
I prefer.
effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and
you expect the public to pay for your work, you must give up any
control over your work, in the hope that the public will pay you for it
anyway".
Please, this is really not the case. Although it is the fear. given
that most rich patrons want/need public distribution of the work
you
do for them (think hollywood), i have a hard time
understanding how
this
is
not tantamount to saying "if you want to get
paid anything for your
work, you must give up all control over it".
Why should it be impossible for a movie to earn back its real costs in
the opening weekend? but now that the movie is in public release (in your
scenario),
i've lost all control over my work, so any income i can derive from it now
is basically fortuitous.
Well, I am saying that I prefer no copyright law to what we have today. I am
saying that in my lifetime I have only seen things get worse.
How would you like to see things change? What is a workable system in your
mind?
Besides, if the only way for the current model to
continue is to destroy
freedom and democracy, I know whcih I want to keep.
i'm not arguing for the current model. but i'm certainly arguing against a
model where public release implies loss of all control over one's work.
--p
all the best,
drew