Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: drew Roberts <zotz@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 4:37 pm

--f46d04426ccc8ff45004d59dc0f8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, drew Roberts wrote:

> On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis wrote:

that constitutes a private audience, with the twist that it is an audience
willing to pay for the work even before it is complete. conceptually, this
is no different than the patronage system that has supported artists for
centuries. it is still patronage, but just crowd sourced.

>

it is necesssary and important to differentiate between what the law
requires and what technology implies. they are quite different. technology
has created the scenario in which digital copying is a fact of life, and we
must all deal with that. copyright (and other related) law did not create
that scenario and at present is powerless to prevent it.

> > effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and you

in your scenario, you cannot release to the public without giving up
control of your work. so how is this not the case?

> >

not the movie! the score, or the costume design, or the FX used in the 7th
scene. did cameron pay me enough for the score before it came out? maybe,
maybe not. but now that the movie is in public release (in your scenario),
i've lost all control over my work, so any income i can derive from it now
is basically fortuitous.

> Besides, if the only way for the current model to continue is to destroy

i'm not arguing for the current model. but i'm certainly arguing against a
model where public release implies loss of all control over one's work.

--p

--f46d04426ccc8ff45004d59dc0f8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, drew R=
oberts <zotz@100jamz.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis wrote:<=
br>

had
uot;leak"

Not at all, perhaps we are going to have to go to something like kick=
starter /
indiegogo for funding to initial release for some.that constitutes a private audience, with the twist that it is an audience=
willing to pay for the work even before it is complete. conceptually, this=
is no different than the patronage system that has supported artists for c=
enturies. it is still patronage, but just crowd sourced.
=A0

Perhaps things will work just fine as they seem to in the fashion industry.=

>

a
lies
rk (even

In actuality, one already gives up this ability as can be seen from t=
he
constant cries of "piracy" killing the industry.it is necesssary and important to differentiate between what the law r=
equires and what technology implies. they are quite different. technology h=
as created the scenario in which digital copying is a fact of life, and we =
must all deal with that. copyright (and other related) law did not create t=
hat scenario and at present is powerless to prevent it.

> effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich=
patron and you

ver
;.

Please, this is really not the case. Although it is the fear.in your scenario, you cannot release to the public withou=
t giving up control of your work. so how is this not the case?=A0

>

you
is is
ur work,

Why should it be impossible for a movie to earn back its real costs i=
n the
opening weekend?not the movie! the score, or the =
costume design, or the FX used in the 7th scene. did cameron pay me enough =
for the score before it came out? maybe, maybe not. but now that the movie =
is in public release (in your scenario), i've lost all control over my =
work, so any income i can derive from it now is basically fortuitous.
=A0
Besides, if the only way for the current model to continue is to destroy
freedom and democracy, I know whcih I want to keep.i'm not arguing for the current model. but i'm certainly arguing =
against a model where public release implies loss of all control over one&#=
39;s work.
--p

--f46d04426ccc8ff45004d59dc0f8--

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

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, James Harkins, (Wed Feb 13, 2:15 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:42 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Feb 13, 11:13 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:45 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Paul Davis, (Wed Feb 13, 3:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 4:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Paul Davis, (Wed Feb 13, 4:37 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 5:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 9:35 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, michael noble, (Wed Feb 13, 7:45 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 8:22 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, michael noble, (Wed Feb 13, 8:57 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 9:07 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Feb 13, 11:28 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:49 am)