10 Feb
2013
10 Feb
'13
5:39 p.m.
Top-posting to note that the subject line should be changed when the
content of the thread has no more direct relevance to the original
topic. I do not say the new issues aren't important. Consider the
subject change an action towards better documentation, i.e. if I'm
looking for information regarding copyright issues I'm not likely to
start my search through a topic on what sucks about Linux audio. A lot
of good information is buried in the wrong threads here.
Best,
dp
On 02/10/2013 11:29 AM, Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/10/2013 10:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
You are not stealing anything from the creator.
They had that control before
they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public realm,
they gave up that ability. Copyright law tries to pretend that they have such
control still and provides penalties (and in my mind, way out of proportion
penalties) for excercising what we would otherwise be free to do in the
natural world, but nothing is stolen from anyone in this situation. Unless
perhaps copyright law steals our Freedom?
Is it your contention that a property
owner gives up all rights to his
own property once he lets someone else see or hear it??
I think you are missing the point of a copyright. An owner doesn't give
up his rights to his property unless he releases it into the public
domain. Even if he agrees to license it for sale or use, he still
retains his rights to distribution or use. If, for example, someone
wants to license his song to use for a commercial, he can say no. If
someone wants to record a song he has written, the owner can either say
no, or else be compensated by a licensing fee. If a band member writes
a song for his band, he will receive royalties for the use of that song.
I'm a proponent of releasing music under alternative terms, but that
should be up to the owner, not the consumer. After all, to most
consumers, they would obviously prefer that EVERYTHING be free.