30 Jun
2010
30 Jun
'10
7:21 p.m.
Rob wrote:
Bad recasts all. In each case there's no misappropriation of the work
itself. There is a displacement thanks to a technological development -
what we're probably talking about anyway when we talk about failed
business models or business models on the way out - but elevators,
buggies, automobiles, windmills, and refineries remain. Geez, I even saw
an elevator operator when I was in New York.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 08:37 am, Dave Phillips
wrote:
In the context of the discussion, it's about royalty payments. Copyright
"counts" to me in other dimensions as well, but the subject under
discussion has to do with profiting from copyrighted work.
I have an observation re: this thread: People who
don't hold copyrights
or patents typically don't understand the full significance of copyright
or patent laws because they never have to. Those of us who do hold them
regard the issue differently.
My company and I hold plenty of copyrights. Or do copyrights only count to
you if they result in royalty payments?
My advice, try
making your living from
royalties for a few years, then let me know how you feel about watching
someone else appropriate your work.
"My advice, try making your living selling buggies for a few years and then
let me know how you feel about automobiles."
"My advice, try making your living as an elevator operator for a few years,
then let me know how you feel about the new ones with all those buttons."
"My advice, try making your living as an oil refiner for a few years, and
then let me know how you feel about windmills."
It's inevitable that people who subscribe to a
business model that's still
dominant but on its way out will rail against the forces making that
business model unsustainable, call those advancing the opposing technology
all kinds of names, and pretend the status quo will remain in force
indefinitely. But doing so doesn't make a business model any more
sustainable in the face of change.
No one except the PR bozos at ASCAP seem to think so.
We are not in disagreement here. But you'll understand that I'm in no
hurry to eliminate my revenue streams just to satisfy my idealism.
I pay for software, books, movies and music. Probably
more than most
people, though not using Windows or MacOS at all pretty much limits my
software expenses to things like Wii games. But geez, look around you. If
you can't see that young people don't see digital representations of things
as having the same value as physical objects, and that some of those young
people are going to be lawmakers in another couple decades, you're in
denial. When works were tied to physical objects -- CDs, vinyl, magnetic
tape -- it was easy to perceive the value of the whole package.
I teach music for a part of my living. I'm fascinated by the march of
media tech, and in the past ten years alone I've watched students go
from discs to dedicated file players to ipods to
god-knows-what-it's-called-today-but-damn-it's-cool. And yes, we discuss
the realities of how they get their music. I'm not living in an ivory tower.
But typing:
cp davephillips-springof23.ogg /mnt/mp3-player/songs
doesn't instantly create value the way building a second copy of a car
would, no matter how badly copyright proponents would like to pretend it
does. Even copying an LP to a tape created more value than that, back in
the day.
"Value" gets a bit slippery in that context. It kinda depends on who
copied the song and why, doesn't it ? Or do we determine "value" only in
monetary terms or pertaining only to durable goods ?
Best,
dp