16 Jul
2010
16 Jul
'10
1:43 a.m.
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-je…
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-football-ph…
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(a)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?