"Give me a property right and i'll fix my house - take it away and the neighbors might decide that we're all better off if they walk across my lawn and peek into my bedroom. The anticopyright movement thinks record company executives are stupid. I assure you - they are not."
Ah, it's the "easily duplicatable ideas equals scarce materia" argument. I can assure you that the "market" don't need exclusivity in order to be able to keep using all of the ideas at the same time.
And by the way, it's not a market - it's a culture of people. Movies and music should be treated as culture that should be free and that you participate in, not as commodities that somebody else makes.
Creativity will not end if exclusivities end, it will rather explode.
We will just not see $100 000 000 dollar Hollywood movies, but millions of movies made by hobbyists and amatuers that do the things they do because they love it.
"Second - the "it follows, therefore it was caused by" fallacy. innovation (by what measure?) was down, so greater IP must be responsible. How about weak economy? How about increased piracy? How about a ton of things we haven't even analyzed."
Let me reverse that. "IP laws was made, then the technological revolution came". Oh, sure, stronger exclusivities will make creativity and innovation go up. Not.
"COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT IDEAS. Read Section 102(b) of the copyright act. It protects expression."
Tell that to the Twilight copyright owners. They seem to think they own the names, the concept and anything with a forest, moon and the text "Twilight" on, et cetera.
"the "innovation" criticisms simply don't apply to copyright"
Except that most publisher could stop a book because you have quoted a line of 8 words. 8 words!? How is that not to stop innovation? What if I would come up with those words indepently and at the same time put it in a larger sentence, and have that taken down because of reusing 8 words?
Must everything be unique down to the letter?
"If you want people to spend their days and nights doing analysis, criticism, journalism and making art - then they need a way to get paid."
I guess you have forgotten all those billions examples of people that ARE getting paid without copyrights. It's about the experience, personal value and uniqueness!
It may sound like wierd Science Fiction, but here in Sweden the collection societies has recently accepted CC-licensed music as a royalty-free alternative (!).
Who knew that even they have people with brains?
"In some cases there is no realistic potential for me to make money off the secondary use, but in that situation it isn't actually costing me anything so I don't have any reason to object."
This should be highlighted more. If it doesn't cost you anything, then there's no reason to object.
Too few people think of it this way, they rather want to think of it as their right to be compensated for every single use and to have total control of everything, even if that means that EVERYBODY lose out on it,
Imagine that some phone booth company would charge anybody that's outdoors because they *might* be using their phone boots...
Well, I guess they'll make more money that way then by actually measuring the use and charging those who use it. Let's forget the damage to society and unfairness, etc...
The main problem is equipment requirements (transmission watts limits is one of them) and multiple signal "overlapping" in the same frequency.
If some sort of central organization was started with local offices all over and proper radio equipment, then we could make that happen. That way we could also make sure that the same frequency is not used by several broadcasters in the same area.
I can imagine that a lot of people would want to link that with internet radio streams, so people who would want to broadcast things would set up audio streaming software (that's actually really easy!) and let the "radio offices" of choice "replay"/"forward" it to actual radio waves (broadcast).
Make some more noise! Spread the word! Make people understand that this NEVER was about "helping artists making a living", just control! Keep making free music and make people understand that they have a choice!
That's one badass DRM scheme that's needed for that.
"We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more."
School plays, singing in the bathroom, humming, whatever. Should they be included too?
That piracy bit needs evidence, since there's no proof yet (don't think there ever will be) that it causes any loss of income for anybody but the big company CEOs.
"We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights."
The rest of us has the right to advocate for fair laws.
"We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us"
Sounds like you have no choice with BMI and those two others.
And about the right to a share in the profit, does that mean percentages? How would that be calculated? Why not just stick to fees?
"when so many forces are seeking to [...] devalue artistic expression"
On the contrary. We want to increase the value of artistic expressions. We just don't want to value it in money and lock it down.
The rest are mostly straw men arguments that I could recite as a defence for my own views.
Evidence please.
What valuable function do they provide by charging money from small shops that only have live bands that play their own original music and then pass that money on to the current TV/Radio Top 100 artists? How does that help society?
What excuse is it that the minimum costs are relatively small?
On the post: Nintendo Doesn't Want To Criminalize Obsessed Fans... But Sometimes Will Anyway
Re: There's no mud
Replace with "the value of an idea does not lie in the exclusivity the man who had it can get on it" and it's golden.
On the post: Why Kenya's Attempt To Put Intellectual Property Rights In Its Constitution Is A Mistake
Re:
Ah, it's the "easily duplicatable ideas equals scarce materia" argument. I can assure you that the "market" don't need exclusivity in order to be able to keep using all of the ideas at the same time.
And by the way, it's not a market - it's a culture of people. Movies and music should be treated as culture that should be free and that you participate in, not as commodities that somebody else makes.
Creativity will not end if exclusivities end, it will rather explode.
We will just not see $100 000 000 dollar Hollywood movies, but millions of movies made by hobbyists and amatuers that do the things they do because they love it.
"Second - the "it follows, therefore it was caused by" fallacy. innovation (by what measure?) was down, so greater IP must be responsible. How about weak economy? How about increased piracy? How about a ton of things we haven't even analyzed."
Let me reverse that. "IP laws was made, then the technological revolution came". Oh, sure, stronger exclusivities will make creativity and innovation go up. Not.
"COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT IDEAS. Read Section 102(b) of the copyright act. It protects expression."
Tell that to the Twilight copyright owners. They seem to think they own the names, the concept and anything with a forest, moon and the text "Twilight" on, et cetera.
"the "innovation" criticisms simply don't apply to copyright"
Except that most publisher could stop a book because you have quoted a line of 8 words. 8 words!? How is that not to stop innovation? What if I would come up with those words indepently and at the same time put it in a larger sentence, and have that taken down because of reusing 8 words?
Must everything be unique down to the letter?
"If you want people to spend their days and nights doing analysis, criticism, journalism and making art - then they need a way to get paid."
I guess you have forgotten all those billions examples of people that ARE getting paid without copyrights. It's about the experience, personal value and uniqueness!
On the post: WIPO Worried About Why Countries Feel They Needed ACTA Process Outside Of WIPO
Re:
On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers
Re: Re: ASCAP, BMI
Who knew that even they have people with brains?
On the post: WSJ Opinion Highlights The Problems Of 'Permission Culture'
Re: Re: No such thing as "obvious" fair use
This should be highlighted more. If it doesn't cost you anything, then there's no reason to object.
Too few people think of it this way, they rather want to think of it as their right to be compensated for every single use and to have total control of everything, even if that means that EVERYBODY lose out on it,
On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers
Re: Re: Re: Ascap,Bmi,Sesac
On the post: Even US Intellectual Property Organization Concerned About ACTA Being Too Broad & Changing US Laws
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers
Re:
On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers
Re: Double standard
Imagine that some phone booth company would charge anybody that's outdoors because they *might* be using their phone boots...
Well, I guess they'll make more money that way then by actually measuring the use and charging those who use it. Let's forget the damage to society and unfairness, etc...
On the post: How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Are Geographic Restrictions On Content Obsolete?
Re: Radio licenses
If some sort of central organization was started with local offices all over and proper radio equipment, then we could make that happen. That way we could also make sure that the same frequency is not used by several broadcasters in the same area.
I can imagine that a lot of people would want to link that with internet radio streams, so people who would want to broadcast things would set up audio streaming software (that's actually really easy!) and let the "radio offices" of choice "replay"/"forward" it to actual radio waves (broadcast).
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re: Re: not clear what they hope to accomplish
It's stupid, and only cause harm.
Who can seriously say that the commercial music on the radio is better then the average CC-licensed song?
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Wrong
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: http://www.ascap.com/rights/
"We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more."
School plays, singing in the bathroom, humming, whatever. Should they be included too?
That piracy bit needs evidence, since there's no proof yet (don't think there ever will be) that it causes any loss of income for anybody but the big company CEOs.
"We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights."
The rest of us has the right to advocate for fair laws.
"We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us"
Sounds like you have no choice with BMI and those two others.
And about the right to a share in the profit, does that mean percentages? How would that be calculated? Why not just stick to fees?
"when so many forces are seeking to [...] devalue artistic expression"
On the contrary. We want to increase the value of artistic expressions. We just don't want to value it in money and lock it down.
The rest are mostly straw men arguments that I could recite as a defence for my own views.
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: ASCAP & BMI are good
What valuable function do they provide by charging money from small shops that only have live bands that play their own original music and then pass that money on to the current TV/Radio Top 100 artists? How does that help society?
What excuse is it that the minimum costs are relatively small?
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re:
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re:
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What could possibly justify it?
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>