I don't normally contribute to the "intellectual property" vrs
"freedom" threads ... but maybe it is time :)
My simple minded beliefs includes that a "creator" has certain rights
to his creation. If he/she wants to share (freely) with the rest of
the world, great. If they think that only people who pay a certain sum
of money can share it, that's their right as well.
And if the creator wants to assign these rights to someone else (ie.
the RIAA, or whatever) ... well, that's fine as well. After all, it's
their song/artwork to do with as they wish.
Now, it gets more complicated if someone (like me) has purchased
something which has "pay for me" rights attached. Again, I have the
freedom to NOT buy it, listen to it, look at it, etc. But if I do buy
it, do I have the right to give copies away to anyone? Probably not. I
think there is an implicit (if not explicit) contract when I make the
purchase that I not do that.
Of course this gets complicated if the artist is long dead, etc. A
moral question might be: how much do the artist's heirs get to earn
from their long-dead relative's work?
But, really, I think the real problem is that most of the works we are
all concerned about were released in the pay-me-via-the-RIAA model
long before the digital and internet distribution channels existed.
Nor were those channels considered when the original distributions
Hopefully new models (Creative Commons, etc) can cure some of the
problems in the future. Mind you, new problems will arise!
And, maybe artists can earn some money in the future as well. I don't
see this via distribution earnings ... rather performance and perhaps
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM, drew Roberts wrote: