30 Jun
2010
30 Jun
'10
7:28 p.m.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 13:12:05 Paul Davis wrote:
the claim here is that the development of an idea
before it is
expressed is a form of work. if the work is to be rewarded, its either
going to be done before, at or after the point at which an expression
of the idea is released into the world.
before: will work without any copyright law
at: will work without any copyright law
after: might work some without any copyright law but probably very
problematic.
because copying the expression
is so easy, its not easy to see how one can ensure sufficient revenue
from the release to make it feasible for the artist to *work* as an
artist.
So, you think that the before and at options are not viable?
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.
Putting someone in jail for 4 or 5 years because they thought they were buying
a legit CD and were ripped off by the seller is way over the top.
Making someone sell their home to pay for the "damage" incurred by a big corp
(or you) when the person's child did some song swapping on the net is way
over the top.
all the best,
drew