1 Jul
2010
1 Jul
'10
3:06 p.m.
On 07/01/2010 10:57 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
I won't be surprised if there will be some who will push for that on the
premise of defending copyright laws but the real motive will be to
instead create another legally sanctioned method for controlling society.
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.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 11:41:25 Paul Davis 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.
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:
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.
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.
And there is the rub on that side of things. But I have maintained for
years
in other areas that we should not have laws on the books that we do not
intend to (or can't) enforce fairly and regularly. Otherwise, we breed
contempt for law in general.
Are we to get to the point were we pass a death sentence on those who
illegally copy music? Will that put enough fear into the people to get them
to stop?
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.
So, for a brief point in time, things came together to allow this. That
time
wasn't here long and seems to be passing. Rather than ruining society in
general we need to look forward and try to find ways for those who want to
earn a living with their art to be able to do so if they possess the
necessary skills, temperament, etc. to do so. And that art gets produced in
any case.
I am convinced that people will pay for art to be produced and to "hang out"
with artists in one form or another.
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd