I agree with you, Anthracite. The way it’s going, we’ll be lucky if today’s artists’ great grandkids live to see the copyrights expire. :eek:
I’ve participated in way too many discussions about the copyright laws. I am onboard with Anthracite here. I think artist’s life + XX years (I like 25 years, or maybe 35, 40) is fine.
However, the way some people talk, we copyright holders should maybe, maybe get 20 years or something. And that I will never accept.
I still would like to hear from UnoMundo how he thinks that artists should survive and pay the bills, if they are not entitled to get “paid.” How will this work? Is UnoMundo going to become a benefactor? How does he think that all creative people will earn a living? These are the things I want to know.
But that is not how it works, Anthracite. Usually, you signed your copyrights away to a coglomerate like RIAA for pennies. And the conglomerate will act like a bitch to even give you royalties for your work.
Anthracite, if the music industry is so held hostage by piracy, then why are independent sales increasing? These little companies live on advertising by mp3.
The RIAA would like to cite stories about the 1 million downloaded poor guy, like there are ‘Hokey Pokey’* songs spreading wildfire on the net and the poor guy who made the song getting no money for it. Well, the RIAA thinks that way, because they were the ones who pulled stunts like that off in the first place.
*‘Hokey Pokey’ is one of the most known songs in the world, right up there with ‘Happy Birthday’. It has been recorded hundreds of times. The writer got nothing for it, thankd to the RIAA.
I have given extra money to artists I enjoy if I thought they were particularly talented.
Taxpayers are another source of aid for artists. After working in an NGO whose funding came almost entirely from the European Union and CoE, and now chasing a graduate degree towards classics through mostly government money, I understand the value of government grants for careers that aren’t capable of turning a profit. I think it would be great if the government could subsidize more artists.
BTW, it’s UnuMondo, not UnoMundo. It’s not Spanish, so please don’t spell it like it is.
UnuMondo
You know the original length of copyright was 14 years, right? Good enough for the founding fathers, good enough for us. (Although I’m not willing to compromise on that issue, I still think any intellectual property is theft, so I’ll continue to ask as if there are no copyrights at all.)
UnuMondo
Funny how the thread so far has been between filesharers and “think about the artists!” types. And when someone does think about the artists - it made Tim Buckley a broken, bitter man to see his masterpiece treated badly by his label and he’d be overjoyed to know people were still listening to it today - you come up with this silly “think about the corporations” line.
Against the law, maybe, but not against morality. How is it moral to let a company sit on the work of other people and deprive the public of a resource?
Nope. You come up with an idea, it belongs to society, not to you only. You have no right to let it be lost once it has been disseminated amongst the public.
Because it’s not the extensions that matter, it’s the entire notion of intellectual property that is an affront.
That’s weak. Slavery and women not being allowed to vote were also good enough for the founding fathers. Big whoop.
I’m glad it’s no longer 14 years. That’s far too short.
And yes, I think it’s quite obvious. You’re a leech. You want to consume, consume, consume creative works, but yet cherry pick who you’ll deem to compensate financially. Apparently, some people’s work is worth $0 to you, but you want them to donate it to you anyway.
Thank God that’s not how it works, and I hope it never works that way.
By the way, how would you expect big-budget movies like Lord of the Rings to be funded if no one could “own” the work and no one could feel entitled to get paid for it? You think the taxpayers are going to fund it?
Sorry about misspelling your username. Funny, people mispell my username constantly, and yet I don’t bestir myself to correct them. Your mileage obviously varies on that point.
Does “creative” mean “unable to perform any other kind of work”?
I’m more or less a creative person. I’d love nothing more than to be able to earn a living by sitting at home, working on my IRC client and script engine and little games.
But you know what? I can’t. So I go to work during the day, sit in meetings, and write code to someone else’s specs. That code is valuable to my employer not because they can hoard it and charge people for access to it, but because they sell physical products and my code makes those products work.
Then I come home and work on my own projects, which I give away, because (1) I like doing it, and (2) I like filling a niche. The world is a better place with free software in it.
I have a friend who does the same thing with music. He spends at least as much time making drum’n’bass music as I do writing freeware, but he doesn’t earn a cent from it–though he probably could.
There are plenty of models that allow art to be made, even if the artist doesn’t charge for access to it. Patronage is one, altruism is another. Art will still be made even if copyright as we know it ceases to exist.
Unfortunately for the champions of copyright, that is how it works. It just isn’t legal. We can’t even stop the illicit flow of drugs, which have to be transported physically and require a ton of clandestine effort to produce; do you seriously think we’re going to stop the illicit flow of information?
Why? Because you don’t want to sell your work, or because people don’t want to consume your work? Are people clamouring to use your work? Demanding it? Expecting it?
If you give away your hard work to people who demand it of you but are not willing to help fund your efforts, then either you are…well, way too generous, or you are buying into the idea that you owe people your hard work for $0. And that’s fine for you, but that’s definitely your deal. Not mine, not a lot of other people’s deal either, thank goodness.
That’s your choice to make. Don’t expect everyone else to make that same choice for themselves. Don’t think that your personal viewpoint on your personal projects are going to apply to everyone else.
Personally, if you want to give your car away or your house, your dog, or your free time, just because you enjoy giving things away, that’s fine. But don’t expect the rest of us to feel the same way.
Dandy. And I have a mom who bangs on her piano and sings for hours on end. No one pays her for that. Then again, no one is demanding that copies the music she has created be available to them for nothing either. And if she had recordings of the music she played, or if she made copies of her sheet music, and people demanded to use these copies without her permission and/or without paying her, well, they’d be leeches at the very least.
But since no one is doing that, she’s having a dandy time playing the piano and singing. She doesn’t expect people to pay her for that. But by damn, if they wanted to use her sheet music or wanted the recordings of her singing, they’d better be willing to pay her for her time or effort. She doesn’t owe them that just for nothing.
But someone has to pay for it. The artist has to eat. If the leeches won’t pay for it, then the taxpayers will pay for it, I guess. Is that what you want? Someone pays for it. But apparently, that “someone” should never be the leeches of the world.
Thank God it doesn’t work this way. Thank God.
Unless you want to have all artists and creative people working at K-Mart or at the office, toiling away, and maybe…just maybe having some free time now and then to do their art.
Better to have people spend their days in non-creative jobs and have a few scarse hours at night to do their creative work than to actually get paid for it and actually (horror of horrors) make a living out of it. God Forbid. Such a horrible concept.
Better to have the taxpayers fund these creative people. Or to have the creative people hold out hope that some rich “benefactor” will help them out. (Yeah. That happens all the time.) Anything’s better than expecting the leeches to actually pay for the work they so eagerly want to gobble up.
And bloody good for them, too.
Huh, I think I got that last line wrong. (Not enough sleep.)
Well, off to bed now…
Usually? I never have. I know many artists who never have. And we’re not just talking about music when I say “copyright”.
I have never asserted on any message board or communication on the Net that the music industry is held hostage. Nor am I any fan of the RIAA and their questionable figures. I am a fan of the rights of copyright holders being upheld under the current laws, even if they are wrong and oppressive. I am also a fan of changing those laws, radically if need be.
If you sign a legal contract under no duress from the other party, then you get what you get. For speculations sake, wouldn’t it be nice if artists groups themselves sponsored some sort of free or very-subsidized legal assistance or hotline so people don’t sign their rights away without knowing the ramifications?
What thread are you reading? You’ve put “think about the corporations” bit in quotes, saying that’s my “line”. That sure looks like false attribution of quotes here on the SDMB, and that’s against the Rules and bannable, IIRC. I think you’d better explain yourself.
Plus that fact that you have purposefuly and completely misrepresented my statement. I am talking about the rights of the copyright holders. This means you, me, yosemitebabe, George Bush, and Carrot Top. As well as Disney and the RIAA.
That’s such a ridiculous Strawman argument response to what I said I swear I’m hearing Dorothy, the Tin Man, and Toto too singing as they trot down the Yellow Brick Road. I said no such thing, and asserted no such thing, and implied no such thing. I’m talking about the copyright holders. Maybe you’ve never bothered to think you were worthy of producing anything copyrightable, but I assure you that you are wrong. And you have rights, although you may choose to waive them.
Please cite the case law that says my intellectual property rights “belong to society”. And who are you telling me I have “no right to let it be lost once it has disseminated amongst the public”? What makes you think we copyright holders have no rights of control? Do you have any law to back you up, or is this just another “fight the power” thing done anonymously on an Internet message board?
:rolleyes: Well, I’m not going to respond to this in detail as I didn’t sign up to explain How the World and Society Through Thousands of Years of History Really Works Parts 1-18,732. Besides, it’s copyrighted and I can’t post it here anyhow. 
What the fuck are you on about? You said in an earlier post that you thought the RIAA sued to stop radio stations from allowing requests. I asked for a cite since I don’t know if it is true or not. Your best response is this gibberish?
Either radio stations can take requests or they can’t. You say the RIAA doesn’t allow them to. SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM! I don’t think that is too hard to understand. At the very least, if you can’t or won’t support your position, maybe you can tell me why the RIAA would care what a radio station plays?
Maybe you missed the memo, but I and several other posters are not talking about the law. We’re talking about our own beliefs concerning the role of art and society and how copyright hampers it. The law shouldn’t be the highest authority for a person, but rather should find a place somewhere below their moral beliefs. You can preach your gospel of unwavering attention and loyalty to the Almighty Law all you want. Meantime, I’m going to do what feels right and download some obscure or forgotten music. Ta ta.
UnuMondo
For the record, I remember in 1994 there was a radio station in Portland Oregon that took requests. A friend of mine even got her request played.
As for copyright, I myself claim copyrights on several software products. I even have my own website to sell them. Know how much I’ve made in sales? $0.00. Nobody knows about me or my site or my programs. But yet, I simply and absolutely refuse to sell my copyright to a publisher. If the software industry is anything like the music industry, they can bow right down and kiss my hiney. Even if it means I have to get a regular job and save up enough to advertise my products.
Sure it’s my right to give my work away for free. In fact I do have a free download posted and it’s been flying off the cybershelf. But for all the effort I put into the other works, I’d really like to get some compensation. Now on the other hand, if some major label bought the copyrights and made millions, then sent me a bill saying I owe them money instead of me getting royalties, then I’d be rightfully pissed and wouldn’t mind seeing their intellectual property being swapped for zip.
I never said anything about requests. Calling in requests to a radio station is such a ridiculous suggestion in the context of this debate that I assumed nobody would think that is what I meant. I was talking about internet radio in which you can choose the next song from a big list.
I had thought that there once was such a thing, but then I remembered that what it actually was was that you were able to imput some of your favorite artists, and that would influence the playlist. You never actually got to choose the next song.
And now that I think about, I’m pretty sure even this was too much for the RIAA! Imagineradio was the name of the site, and I don’t think they even let you program a station with your favorite artists anymore!
Now they let you choose a “genre”, which of course contains artists of their choice. :rolleyes:
Yeah, great idea there. And people wonder why file sharing is the only option?
As Dead Badger pointed out above, filesharing is far from the only option. You and your ilk are just too stupid to realize it.
Well sure there’s an initial drop in sound quality when ripping to mp3, but that is the only time it will occur. After that, I can copy the mp3 50 times, and copy any of the 50 copies 50 times, and the sound quality between any of the files will be exactly the same. This obviously cannot be done with a cassette, as even a third or fourth generation copy sounds like shit. The only way to get a good copy of the tape would be to copy it from the original over and over again, which makes it more difficult to disseminate it to the populace.
There really is no comparision between cassette tape and mp3 piracy.
I already responded to each and every one of Dead Badger’s “options.”
Reading reviews, getting suggestions, listening to radio, blah blah blah.
Why pretend these things are alternatives to file sharing? It’s not like you are fooling anyone.
-
I don’t have the money to buy every cd that gets a good review - I need to know I will like it before a spend so much money.
-
I want to listen to a wide variety of music. None of your suggestions allow this. And that’s where it ends - if there is NO other way to listen to a wide variety of music, then file sharing is ABSOLUTELY the only option for those who want to listen to a wide variety of music.
It’s the only option for getting stuff entirely for free. That nearly everyone realises, and that’s why its so popular and unstoppable.
UnuMondo