I'm sorry, so I am required to buy their music even if:
a) I don't like it
b) I like it, but hate getting it on CD
c) I like it, but hate having to buy multiple copies
d) I like it, but prefer to listen to bands that are accessible and highly interested in their fans
e) I like it, but don't find $15 of value in a piece of plastic
f) I like it, but want to be able to share it with my friends
Sorry, I choose no thanks. Oh, wait, you won't make any money--guess I'll just keep paying my taxes and your unemployment...
"I see it as something that exists to attract believers but does very little to elevate their spiritual existence."
Hmmmm... I think that I would very much disagree. I personally find that the display of symbols helps me very much connect with my faith. At least in my case, they serve as a visual cue to remind me of the beliefs, values, and ethics that I hold as a bar for my character. To your point, perhaps somewhere down the line I may transcend the need for them, but right now I find the need to rather regularly re-examine my approach to things to ensure it is consistent with my goals.
But I grant that it is a highly nuanced view--and not everyone is self-aware enough to make the distinction.
Your response provides a great deal of clarity as to one aspect of the confusion. I believe that many people see art and business very differently and forget that when the pursuit of art needs money to continue, that it can somehow operate under different rules than the harsh environment of business. That is a very hard transition for many artists to make.
Re: Re: Record companies' and bands' futured tied together?
The other thing that is missed here is the implicit presumption that the current situation optimizes the recognition and promotion of talented bands. Or, to say it differently, do we really believe there are no bands missing out on being discovered under the current regime?
So, yes, perhaps the death of large labels will cause some (perhaps many) bands to remain undiscovered and unsuccessful, but is it more or less than now?
Cite your evidence. Actually, the founding fathers disagree with you. The reason for copyright was not to *create* financial incentives because they already existed.
And there is evidence the fashion industry is thriving here and being stymied in Europe. Oh, and knockoffs and parasitic behavior exist there too. Don't let any facts get in the way of your death-grip on ignorance.
I think you misunderstood Mike's point--he was saying losing a reputation can suck and Metallica is an example of that. So yes, he is referring to exactly what you said.
Except for the part where they already have a financial incentive to create without copyright. You know, like the fashion industry, where there is no copyright?
No, creators can sell their creations regardless of copyright. And they make money by selling things that are different from their competitors (actual or perceived) or executing their business model better than their competitors.
If you are in the business of selling things that are easily copied by someone else, then you might want to look for other ways to differentiate yourself (in things that are not easily copied) rather than turning to the government for a subsidy (in the form of copyright).
Ok, how exactly? You might want to look in the mirror with a comment like that.
BTW... please cite your understanding of the history of copyright in your examples. And by the way, please explain how making money and being granted exclusive use of an unique creative expression are one in the same. I see the former requiring proper execution--there are many, many things that are copyrighted on which no one makes any money.
Actually the purpose of copyright has NOTHING to do with making it possible for anyone to make money. It is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts".
No, not at all. I'm agreeing with you. I was just trying to point out the reason why I think others argue they do--I believe they conflate infringement with other issues.
Well, to be fair, the issue these others seem to have is with the fact that these sites are monetizing the content--meaning they are getting ad-based (or other) revenue by simply referential links. Alternatively they argue that they are taking credit (explicitly or implicitly) for the referenced content.
The problem is that the latter arguments cloud the base issue of infringement with unrelated topics.
One is, whether or not prior work should be attributed from the very beginning. I suspect no one here, including myself would advocate anything other than yes it should--it is ethical and perhaps even moral to do so.
The second is whether or not it makes sense to put all kinds of economic et al barriers to the creation of remixes. I interpret Mike's support to the support of the latter not the support of use without attribution.
I personally believe that the speed at which culture and technology transforms will be directly related to the friction involved in the ability to reuse/leverage/build on/whatever others' work. So our decisions about copyright, etc. must take that impact into consideration.
Okay, but what does that have to do with the price people are willing to pay? I might be willing to pay $20 for a physical book, but only $10 for an electronic one, especially if I can't use it anywhere I want without batteries, loan it to anyone I want, and not resell it.
Those costs partially exist because of history, not because they make sense given the product.
Sorry, that will fail just on the practicality standpoint. The pool of potential jurors must scale with the number of cases and the expectation on those jurors must have a minimal impact on an individual jurors' life.
Your suggested approach would guarantee that the same jurors would be called multiple times each year to meet the caseloads.
On the post: Metallica Sued Napster For This?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
a) I don't like it
b) I like it, but hate getting it on CD
c) I like it, but hate having to buy multiple copies
d) I like it, but prefer to listen to bands that are accessible and highly interested in their fans
e) I like it, but don't find $15 of value in a piece of plastic
f) I like it, but want to be able to share it with my friends
Sorry, I choose no thanks. Oh, wait, you won't make any money--guess I'll just keep paying my taxes and your unemployment...
On the post: Brazil's Catholic Church Sues Columbia Pictures For Destroying Jesus Statue In 2012... In Violation Of Its Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Brazil's Catholic Church Sues Columbia Pictures For Destroying Jesus Statue In 2012... In Violation Of Its Copyright
Re: Re:
Hmmmm... I think that I would very much disagree. I personally find that the display of symbols helps me very much connect with my faith. At least in my case, they serve as a visual cue to remind me of the beliefs, values, and ethics that I hold as a bar for my character. To your point, perhaps somewhere down the line I may transcend the need for them, but right now I find the need to rather regularly re-examine my approach to things to ensure it is consistent with my goals.
But I grant that it is a highly nuanced view--and not everyone is self-aware enough to make the distinction.
On the post: Labels Saying They Don't Want To Deal With Artists Who Won't Make The Effort To Connect
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Labels Saying They Don't Want To Deal With Artists Who Won't Make The Effort To Connect
Re: Re:
On the post: Ok Go Singer Explains How Lack Of Embedding Videos Hurts Everyone
Re: Re: Record companies' and bands' futured tied together?
So, yes, perhaps the death of large labels will cause some (perhaps many) bands to remain undiscovered and unsuccessful, but is it more or less than now?
On the post: Confusing Economic Factors With Moral Ones; Explaining Economics Is Not Anti-Intellectual
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there is evidence the fashion industry is thriving here and being stymied in Europe. Oh, and knockoffs and parasitic behavior exist there too. Don't let any facts get in the way of your death-grip on ignorance.
On the post: An Olympian Spammer Discovers That Reputation Is A Scarce Good You Don't Want To Destroy
Re: Metallisuck
On the post: Confusing Economic Factors With Moral Ones; Explaining Economics Is Not Anti-Intellectual
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Confusing Economic Factors With Moral Ones; Explaining Economics Is Not Anti-Intellectual
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are in the business of selling things that are easily copied by someone else, then you might want to look for other ways to differentiate yourself (in things that are not easily copied) rather than turning to the government for a subsidy (in the form of copyright).
On the post: Confusing Economic Factors With Moral Ones; Explaining Economics Is Not Anti-Intellectual
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW... please cite your understanding of the history of copyright in your examples. And by the way, please explain how making money and being granted exclusive use of an unique creative expression are one in the same. I see the former requiring proper execution--there are many, many things that are copyrighted on which no one makes any money.
And, you might also want to read: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/0234308176.shtml
On the post: Confusing Economic Factors With Moral Ones; Explaining Economics Is Not Anti-Intellectual
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Beyonce's Bikini Infringing On Copyrights?
On the post: UK Court Finds That Simply Linking To Infringing Videos Is Not Infringing
Re: Re: Re: So, by that logic..
On the post: UK Court Finds That Simply Linking To Infringing Videos Is Not Infringing
Re: So, by that logic..
The problem is that the latter arguments cloud the base issue of infringement with unrelated topics.
On the post: Teen Remixes The Works Of Others Into Best Selling Novel... And Critics Love It
Two issues here
The second is whether or not it makes sense to put all kinds of economic et al barriers to the creation of remixes. I interpret Mike's support to the support of the latter not the support of use without attribution.
I personally believe that the speed at which culture and technology transforms will be directly related to the friction involved in the ability to reuse/leverage/build on/whatever others' work. So our decisions about copyright, etc. must take that impact into consideration.
On the post: Author Claims $9.99 Is Not A 'Real Price' For Books
Re: Re: What is a real price
Those costs partially exist because of history, not because they make sense given the product.
On the post: Leaving Your WiFi Open Decreases Your Fourth Amendment Rights To Privacy?
Re: Re: Re: UM does having an unlocked house door mean that?
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Wrong argument Mike
Your suggested approach would guarantee that the same jurors would be called multiple times each year to meet the caseloads.
On the post: Why Shouldn't Jurors Be Able To Use Technology To Do More Research?
Re: Re: Re: Evidence admissibility
Next >>