Louigi Verona wrote:
> "Yeh, yeh, yeh, artists made art before copyright. What they didn't
Ah yes, Luddism. Bruce Sterling's novels investigate this impact of
evolving technologies upon our societies. Given that any society
includes a balance of agreements and contracts, assumed and explicit,
there is always an imbalance of wealth. Now it favors this class, now it
favors that one. Musicians currently enjoy more legal protection than at
any other time in Western history. In the not-so-recent past they
haven't fared so well. And there's no guarantee that their current good
fortune will continue indefinitely.
Anyway, such laws are made here all the time. Everyone vies for their
share of legal protection for what they perceive as their legitimate
means of livelihood. That's what lobbyists do here, they push for favor
in the formation of law. There are good and bad lobbyists.
> Looking at any law or regulation within that frame is going to deliver
All contracts are "made up", there's nothing especially natural about
them. But contract law is specific to nationality. It's very nice that
your friends can do so well there. You refer to them as professionals,
and I would expect by definition then that they can make a living as
musicians. So do I. But I also create work covered by copyright, and I
happen to not agree with your assumption that what I create becomes
yours by mere possession.
You exaggerate, but it helps emphasize your real point. Ultimately you
want a cap on allowable income, i.e. after a person has made $500,000 on
his recording - whether by direct payment or royalties - he should get
nothing more. Even more, his work ought to be usable without further
fees by anyone anywhere. To follow your own reasoning: Why ? If
anything, it acts as a disincentive to create works requiring
substantial investment of time and material resources.
You do understand that the FSF takes a strong stand on copyright
violation ? Whatever you or I might believe about copyright law, the FSF
clearly understands that it protects projects like Linux. Money is not
the only issue in the misappropriation of what is called intellectual
property. The FSF perceives stuff like Linux as intellectual property,
entitled to copyright protection by law, and they enforce action against
violators of the GPL, and with the same justification taken by the
greedy record companies. It's law, and it applies to the good and bad alike.
My music reaches maybe a few thousand people at best. I'm happy to give
it away. My band sells CDs at our gigs, we make a little money from those.
Your statement that "if a musician makes music to then regulate it, I
don't want his music" implies that you have an agenda that I don't
share. I don't care in the least where the music comes from, if the
artist is a Muslim or a Jew, or whether it's covered by license A or
contract Z. I listen to the music, that's what I attend to. The rest is
personal drama, more or less interesting as I have the time to attend to
it. We may not agree on many things, but I guarantee that I will be
utterly honest with regards to your art. The work lives its own life,
not the life of its creator. The life-form of the work interests me, not
> In fact, in my view fields like education, medicine, science and arts
Earlier you economically equalized artists with wash women (nothing
against wash women), now artists are "too important to be spoiled".
Anyway, the statement that "fields like education, medicine, science and
arts should not be platforms for wealth generation" puts you at odds
with probably about 95% of my fellow citizens. Your reasoning simply
assumes that money spoils or stains these activities. I think the
situation is not so black & white.
Btw, composers today still have a lot to say. The ones I like are surely
saying something to me.
Because you're talking about performance, a form of work which is not
subject to copyright.
However, in an amusing twist, the bootleg market here was booming when I
worked in retail years ago. The store owner caught hell from Sony
because he was selling bootleg discs of recorded shows. The corporation
was pissed off because no-one except the bootlegger and the retailer
made any money. Sony wanted to assert copyright violation, but they
didn't go to court. They didn't have to, they simply threatened to stop
delivery of Sony product to the retailer. Ah, power.
There's performance work here too. Probably not so much as in Moscow,
but like there, no-one's making any money from copyright as performers
And I'm out of this discussion. Not because I'm loath to write more. In
fact, I have to write more, just not on this list, and if I don't get
myself back to work (for hire, btw, and subject to copyright) then I
don't get paid. I need more memory in the secondary machine, the vet
needs paid, I gotta buy groceries this week, I just got the water bill,
et cetera ad nauseam.
"Money, it's a gas"
Linux-audio-user mailing list