1 Jul
2010
1 Jul
'10
4:54 p.m.
On Thursday 01 July 2010 09:06:20 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Perhaps musicians need to learn a few new tricks.
Do a search and check the prices for autographed sports balls.
And those can only give enjoyment by putting them on a shelf and looking at
them and talking about them with your friends when they come over.
Well you could play the games with them but somehow I doubt that is the use
they are put to.
all the best,
drew
On 07/01/2010 10:57 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Except to the people whose lives are ruined when they are caught in the net or
the crossfire.
snip
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 11:41:25 Paul Davis
wrote:
The problem is not just are we suggesting this. It is being done. Under
our noses. Are we fighting against it?
If the majority ignore the rules then the rules cease to be relevant. On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, drew
Roberts<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
So perhaps they need to use this as a loss leader until they develop a
sufficient reputation.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 10:14:27 Paul Davis
wrote:
> as i see it, the same argument applies to artists and other people who
> spend time creating expressions of ideas. the big question is whether
> or not society agrees that it is desirable for such work to be able to
> be the basis of a way of making living. if a musician/composer is
> going to make a living from their work, its important for them to
> retain control over people's ability to copy what they create.
Or to be paid up front, in full before releasing the first copy... Or
to?
this clearly works for artists with a reputation among sufficient
patrons that makes this possible. its not a general model for artists
with no reputation. > if
we
> want a society in which people can do this sort of thing for a living,
> giving them this control (on reasonable terms)
This is currently the big rub. The terms today are not reasonable. Far
from it. But supposedly these totally over the top terms are still not
good enough to ensure that the artists can survive.
i don't think that anyone in this thread has suggested this. i think
most people on this list probably agree that many of the ways that
large corporations have succeeded in getting copyright law changed
have created an "unreasonable" situation with respect to copyright.
I am convinced that people will pay for art to be produced and to "hang
out" with artists in one form or another.
Traditionally the payment has been with food, drink, shelter, sex and
drugs. ;-)
Money doesn't usually change hands in the music world. Only the minority
of artists actually see any serious cash.