On 02/10/2013 10:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
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.
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Linux-audio-user mailing list