30 Jun
2010
30 Jun
'10
7:38 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
its certainly awful, as are your other examples.
on the other hand, i'm not sure quite how the mixture of easy
distribution via the net but almost no paid compensation for most
artistic work would compare the situation we've had for on the order
of 100 years, in which it was feasible for quite a lot of artists to
make a living by being artists.
and i don't mean this as a snide rhetorical remark - i mean that i
really don't know.
So, you think that the before and at options are not
viable?
i don't believe that the before or at options are viable for the
overwhelming majority of artists & creatives. i think that "before/at"
can probably work for programmers working on contract work.
i'm fine
(to some extent) with the conclusion that we, as a society,
no longer wish to pay artists & creatives to do what they do. but if
that's really going to be the conclusion, we'd better think very
carefully about all the side effects. i'm not sure its pretty, and it
may be even less pretty than the world in which disney and sonny bono
get everything they ask for.
This I seriously doubt. Putting someone off the internet for *being accused*
of violating copyright three times is way over the top.