Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: andy baxter <andy@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 4:19 am

--0016e6d9766692ad9c048a238916
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>>

I don't think artists care so much for copyright. Who care for copyright are
those publishing companies and then they try to speak for "artists" whom
they don't give a sh.. about.
To me all of this is turning things upside down. Saying that copyright is an
incentive to create is revealing complete lack of understanding what
creativity is all about. It is something that only a person who has no idea
what music is or what art is can say - and indeed, that view is backed up
mostly by businessmen most of who really know how to sell things and make a
profit but are ignorant about the rest and they believe that all other
people in the world too have set making money their life goal.

Another common view that for some reason people owe me money if they are
using my work somewhere, especially if they are getting money for it. I do
not understand why this is bad and why should anyone owe money for what they
are doing, even if it is based on my work. Seriously. I mean, it is always a
case by case basis, of course and gratitude, normal human gratitude is one
thing, the law is quite another. To me this law is jealousy that has been
made lawful. You do something and than someone sets up a process by which
he, say, sells your work. How come should I now take part in those profits?
Did I set up that shop? Did I invest time into making my own shop? No,
obviously.
But this is not the only reasoning, in fact, it is not reasoning that makes
me believe that, but rather my views in general, that one person should not
have so many control over freedom of others. If someone wants to use my
music in their film, they do not have to ask me - this is why I write music
and put it out for everybody to listen to in the first place: so that it'd
be used. If they do want to thank me and give me part of the profit - that's
great, but that shouldn't be an obligation enforced by law. In fact, it
should be common sense and based on human relationships. If those are my
friends doing the movie, obviously it would be good of them to somehow thank
me - these are normal relationships. But if those people do not know me,
they should be free to use my work.
Additionally, I do not see why a person should get money for work done once.
I composed music for someone and got one time pay. Why should I then keep
getting money for someone using my work? Because theoretically I could've
gotten more if I would've sold it to several people? But I didn't sell it to
several people. Why should I get the money?
I would say that royalties for writers are somewhat justified since selling
books in general and especially today is not as profitable, more difficult
to get big one time pay.

And in general, the solution to the copyright problem even without changing
the law a lot is simple in my opinion - just say that copyright law is no
longer by default. You want your work copyrighted? You think you need to put
that kind of a restriction on the usage of your work? Okay, go register it.
What this will do is make lots and lots of material effectively free since
in reality not so many authors really need copyright.

Thanks for hearing me out ;)

--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/

--0016e6d9766692ad9c048a238916
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=A0

I think the same thing sometimes. The copyrighted music I download is all s=
tuff that's been around for some time, and I don't see anything wro=
ng about that, but at the same time I can understand why artists might not =
want to take a completely anti-copyright stand. I would like to see scienti=
fic journals and serious periodicals like the New Scientist distributed lik=
e this, for example - they could make their money selling to the people who=
want the latest news right now, but after some time, they would become a r=
esource for everyone to use.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
=
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
I don't think artists care s=
o much for copyright. Who care for copyright are those publishing companies=
and then they try to speak for "artists" whom they don't giv=
e a sh.. about.
To me all of this is turning things upside down. Saying that copyright is a=
n incentive to create is revealing complete lack of understanding what crea=
tivity is all about. It is something that only a person who has no idea wha=
t music is or what art is can say - and indeed, that view is backed up most=
ly by businessmen most of who really know how to sell things and make a pro=
fit but are ignorant about the rest and they believe that all other people =
in the world too have set making money their life goal.
Another common view that for some reason people owe me money if they ar=
e using my work somewhere, especially if they are getting money for it. I d=
o not understand why this is bad and why should anyone owe money for what t=
hey are doing, even if it is based on my work. Seriously. I mean, it is alw=
ays a case by case basis, of course and gratitude, normal human gratitude i=
s one thing, the law is quite another. To me this law is jealousy that has =
been made lawful. You do something and than someone sets up a process by wh=
ich he, say, sells your work. How come should I now take part in those prof=
its? Did I set up that shop? Did I invest time into making my own shop? No,=
obviously.
But this is not the only reasoning, in fact, it is not reasoning that makes=
me believe that, but rather my views in general, that one person should no=
t have so many control over freedom of others. If someone wants to use my m=
usic in their film, they do not have to ask me - this is why I write music =
and put it out for everybody to listen to in the first place: so that it&#3=
9;d be used. If they do want to thank me and give me part of the profit - t=
hat's great, but that shouldn't be an obligation enforced by law. I=
n fact, it should be common sense and based on human relationships. If thos=
e are my friends doing the movie, obviously it would be good of them to som=
ehow thank me - these are normal relationships. But if those people do not =
know me, they should be free to use my work.
Additionally, I do not see why a person should get money for work done once=
. I composed music for someone and got one time pay. Why should I then keep=
getting money for someone using my work? Because theoretically I could&#39=
;ve gotten more if I would've sold it to several people? But I didn&#39=
;t sell it to several people. Why should I get the money?
I would say that royalties for writers are somewhat justified since selling=
books in general and especially today is not as profitable, more difficult=
to get big one time pay.And in general, the solution to the copyri=
ght problem even without changing the law a lot is simple in my opinion - j=
ust say that copyright law is no longer by default. You want your work copy=
righted? You think you need to put that kind of a restriction on the usage =
of your work? Okay, go register it.
What this will do is make lots and lots of material effectively free since =
in reality not so many authors really need copyright.Thanks for hea=
ring me out ;)-- Louigi Veronahttp://www.louigiverona.ru/

--0016e6d9766692ad9c048a238916--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Philipp Überbacher, (Mon Jun 28, 10:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Tue Jun 29, 7:50 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Patrick Shirkey, (Tue Jun 29, 11:46 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Patrick Shirkey, (Thu Jul 1, 12:07 am)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Kevin Cosgrove, (Wed Jun 30, 10:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Patrick Shirkey, (Thu Jul 1, 12:53 am)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Patrick Shirkey, (Fri Jul 2, 12:52 am)
[LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., Gordon JC Pearce, (Fri Jul 16, 7:29 pm)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., Mark Knecht, (Fri Jul 16, 11:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., Louigi Verona, (Sat Jul 17, 7:44 am)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., hermann, (Fri Jul 16, 8:15 pm)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., Gwenhwyfaer, (Fri Jul 16, 9:07 pm)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., James Stone, (Sat Jul 17, 10:14 am)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., Gwenhwyfaer, (Mon Jul 19, 5:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., Patrick Shirkey, (Sat Jul 17, 12:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., Folderol, (Sat Jul 17, 12:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] So long, and thanks for all the fish., Folderol, (Fri Jul 16, 7:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Bob van der Poel, (Thu Jul 15, 11:11 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas, (Fri Jul 16, 11:36 am)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Patrick Shirkey, (Thu Jul 1, 12:59 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Wed Jun 30, 1:29 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Philipp Überbacher, (Wed Jun 30, 4:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Wed Jun 30, 2:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Patrick Shirkey, (Thu Jul 1, 12:12 am)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Patrick Shirkey, (Fri Jul 2, 12:50 am)
Re: [LAU] ASCAP Assails Free-Culture, Digital-Rights Groups, Louigi Verona, (Tue Jun 29, 4:19 am)