30 Jun
2010
30 Jun
'10
5:41 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
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.
however, a separate problem remains that even if one were to stipulate
terms that most people might agree are wholly reasonable, its hard to
see how to enforce these terms at this point in time. this cultural
change makes it much more difficult to use control over expressions of
one's own ideas as a means of making a living.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 10:14:27 Paul Davis wrote:
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.
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? 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.