8 Jul
2010
8 Jul
'10
12:18 a.m.
On Wednesday 07 July 2010 14:05:55 you wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:40 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
Seriously, other people don't have any natural right to control others at this
level.
I always go back to jokes. Do you or anyone you know ever tell jokes that they
did not come up with themselves? If so, is any effort made to determine who
came up with the joke? To determine if the person want's to be paid every
time the joke is told? How often do you hear a joke's originator credited
when a joke is told?
On Wednesday 07 July 2010 10:57:13 Hartmut Noack
wrote:
So my question to the community goes something like this:
(Assume everything is digital for now and there's no DRM so as to make
this easier...)
1) One person makes music and gives it away for free. That's his
business. I can get her music for free and he's happy.
2) Another person makes music and attempts to sell it. That's his
business. I can buy his music and he's happy. If I get his music some
other way he's presumably not happy, if he knows.
3) Another person makes music and isn't confident he can sell it so he
works with a company. The company and he have an agreement and they
are either happy or not happy with each other. It's immaterial to me.
Let's call it 'their' music since they are in business together. I can
buy their music and they are happy. If I get it some other way then
presumably they are not happy, if they know.
The question about #2 & #3 is whether it's _ever_ OK to get the music
if I didn't pay. I contend it isn't. I don't _need_ the music. I
_want_ the music, or think I do. Am 07.07.2010 16:21, schrieb drew Roberts:
> On Wednesday 07 July 2010 09:09:51 Hartmut Noack wrote:
>> So there should be a better system to make sure the work of artists
>> will be compensated if you want fulltime artists.
>>
>> And such work is scarce, because you need to have people working for
>> months to get an album filled with ideas manifested in actual
>> recordings.
I am pretty sure Sean T Wright: http://www.seantwright.com has put out an
album a month for an astounding number of months now. (I think that is
the deal.)
Why is this any different than taking two trips to the salad bar when
the menu said only one was OK with the restaurant?
Because this is an artificial limitation put on society by the government.
That is how it is different. So if the government did not put on this
limitation, it would be ok no matter what 2 or 3 wants. Their options would
be to not give it out at all or try and protect it technically but without
force of law behind the technological restrictions.
You are still equating selling *copies* of music with selling music.
Nothing stops 2 from gaining some popularity and then announcing that he has a
hot new single in the can and that he will release it if he gets X dollars in
binding commitments from wherever. This could be 1 dollar from X people or X
dollars from 1 person or any combo. When he gets X dollars in commitments, he
releases the tune. He has just sold his music. He hasn't necessarily sold any
particular number of copies.
Cheers,
Mark
P.S. - I love what Sean Wright is doing here - both for himself and
for us. Very cool. Thanks for the link.
You might also like these links then:
http://www.joshwoodward.com/music/
http://www.bradsucks.net/music/
http://blaise.ca/music/
http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/99982
http://www.y98radio.com/node/178
http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/131695
http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/113052
Cheers,
Mark
all the best,
drew