Re: The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural
It is about the Artist and inventors COMPLETE control ,, which is that THAT promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural
The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
- Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural
ME: Proves my point. It is not about $$ .
It is about the Artist and inventors COMPLETE control ,, which is that promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
===================
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society(...) - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
" Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right,+++++ but for the benefit of society++++"
-- Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
ME: As i have said , I disagree with TJ. on the natural right point. It is academic and philosophical and unproofable
. One day I will do a paper on it. As I already did with John Locke's "Emotional Problems". But there I have Voltaire and Samual Johnson making my case for me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy
"Just because "right" is in the name doesn't mean it's a right."
ans: That is non-nonsensical.
They are not rights,
Ans : Then what are they ?
Take a civil liberties class find out . Let me know.
"but a suspension of personal liberty made (ostensibly) to promote progress."
Ans: Wrong. Slave owners used that argument in the 1850s. History, War , and Law, has proven the slave owners wrong.
"They do not promote progress, therefore, give the public its liberty back."
Ans: Give it up guy.
Go to a country to where you can buy a slave or two, if you want.
Or course , the slave could then rebel , and enslave you.
If you took a law, civil liberties , or political theory class,, you would fail.
Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy
IF some -non Artists feel , CopyRIGHTS stifles their economic opportunity IN some instances -TOUGH.
Who gets it . How they Get it -- free or for a price.
AND what they can do with it AFTER they get it. ( No copies , outside of personal private use.)
This is undisputed in Law and rational society.
If and Artists want to give away for FREE some aspect of their ART , in order to promote other aspects of their ART,, that is the Artist's choice, and the Artist's choice ALONE.
Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy
Let us change one word :It seems to me that SLAVERY has a negative impact on some individuals but overall SLAVERY has no negative impact on the economy, and SLAVERY may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy.
Do I have to elaborate ?
But to be clear. Copyright and Patent Laws are Morally Just and a Civil Right for Artists and Inventors ( maybe even according to Natural Law.)
IF some -non Artists feel , CopyRIGHTS stifles their economic opportunity is some instances -TOUGH.
An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art) can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.
An ARTIST (or the copyright holder of the Art)
can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.
To me , this is the core point of copyright law. Some poor artists ( or musicians who have strait jobs) may see no need to enforce their copyright control,, But others who make some $$ may see a need most or some times.
Personally , I post some of my songs online for all to record if they wish , but other songs I choose to keep offline.
It is all about Artist Control.
With that in mind re-read from the Good article :
"I'M WITH THE BAND
There is, however, another view about the purpose of copyright law. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to establish copyright protections for authors and inventors to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”
To achieve that goal, copyright law creates “a system to ‘incentivize’ creators and their backers so they can be rewarded for the fruits of their labors so they can continue to create new works,” Goldring says.
If the ultimate goal is to promote the creation of new works, then perhaps it isn’t really necessary to take stronger legal actions against illegal file-sharing because the evidence does not suggest that it is hindering the creation of new works by musicians. That is, at least, the contention of Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf. They note in their paper that, despite the growth of illegal file-sharing, more music than ever is being created and made available to the public. “This makes it difficult to argue that weaker copyright protection has had a negative impact on artists’ incentives to be creative,” their paper states.
The reasons for the surge in musical output aren’t entirely clear to Oberholzer-Gee, Strumpf and other researchers. They suggest that part of the answer is that making music isn’t just about making money. For a lucky few music can be highly lucrative, but most musicians can’t even afford to make it their full-time job.
“Given these poor prospects, why are there so many musicians?” ask Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf in their paper. “One explanation is that musicians enjoy their profession. Under this view, musicians take pleasure from creating and performing music, as well as aspects of the lifestyle such as flexible hours and the lack of an immediate boss.++++ If this theory is correct, the economic impact of file-sharing is not likely to have a major impact on music creation.”+++++
========================
"If this theory is correct, the economic impact of file-sharing is not likely to have a major impact on music creation.”
"Music creation" for the pursuit of Art for Arts sake, is very different than trying to make a living out of it.
For a struggling full-time musician, every CD sale , legal download, and paying gig is how they feed themselves.
If fans of smaller grossing , but well respected artists --- like Steve Erle** for exmp. -- can get the music for free , when they would otherwise pay, they are taking food off of the Musicians table.
IT is rightly against to law , to take for free, what you should be legally paying for.
-------------------------------------
( **One of the best , but not a household name at all , unless the household is full of musicians. http://www.steveerle.com/ )
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.
see you in the courts.
See if you can win there, on copyright extension issues.. ( but clearly not copyright itself , as that is embedded into the constitution.)
Fat chance,
( but in 1968 Ronald Reagan was a political fat chance ,, so who really knows.)
=============
P.S. Once I public perform a song I have written , IT is automatically copyrighted. All songwriters know that. The New Song has been witnessed.
Filing forms of copyright with the Copy-Right gov't thing , just makes it easier to sue the Pirates.
I hate forms. I only file for recordings , if then.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural
( I love double thats. )
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural
- Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural
ME: Proves my point. It is not about $$ .
It is about the Artist and inventors COMPLETE control ,, which is that promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
===================
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society(...) - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
-- Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
ME: As i have said , I disagree with TJ. on the natural right point. It is academic and philosophical and unproofable
. One day I will do a paper on it. As I already did with John Locke's "Emotional Problems". But there I have Voltaire and Samual Johnson making my case for me.
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100514/0126329423#c4358
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Still think copyright is about "artist control?"
ANS : Yes. In this world and the next .
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.
As , I stated in another thread...
You can find 100 good reasons why a mouse is kosher,, right out of Jewish Law.
But the answer is : A mouse AIN'T KOSHER.
( I know , I am also an [nearly fully] ordained orthodox Rabbi. )
You can find alot of arguments , for all forms Priacy. From the high seas to the world wide web.
THEY All sound nice.
But Piracy -- of all forms is, unjust , immoral, and illegal.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy
ans: That is non-nonsensical.
They are not rights,
Ans : Then what are they ?
Take a civil liberties class find out . Let me know.
"but a suspension of personal liberty made (ostensibly) to promote progress."
Ans: Wrong. Slave owners used that argument in the 1850s. History, War , and Law, has proven the slave owners wrong.
"They do not promote progress, therefore, give the public its liberty back."
Ans: Give it up guy.
Go to a country to where you can buy a slave or two, if you want.
Or course , the slave could then rebel , and enslave you.
If you took a law, civil liberties , or political theory class,, you would fail.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.
way off.
Art is my Job. My Work. My role in society.
I love the Public, they feed me.
I love then enough to also give the public
some of my art for free.
Pro Bono.
The rest of my Art people got to pay for.
Rent is due.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: She talks all about label deals and the fact that most artists don't own their own music.
Today in 2010 the Beatles are:
Paul , Ringo , Yoko , and Olivia.
They Control the Beatles recorded Music.
The greatest Music ever recorded.
And Paul & co. Control ALL of its use TODAY.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
She talks all about label deals and the fact that most artists don't own their own music.
or circumvented out of control of the music.
buy many artist DO give up (--- because it can be a big job, esp. if your a Beatle,, to administer your Artists rights)-----and SELL their rights
Like Paul sold to M.J..
Control.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Steve Earle
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Steve Earle
Sorry for the mis-spell Steve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Earle
------------------------
My sister is gonna be pissed.
She a well known friend of Steve.
Oh $@#$ !!!!
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy
corrected
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
me of course
every hour. Runs better.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: It is all about Artist Control.
Who uses is. When they use it . How they use it.
Who gets it . How they Get it -- free or for a price.
AND what they can do with it AFTER they get it. ( No copies , outside of personal private use.)
This is undisputed in Law and rational society.
If and Artists want to give away for FREE some aspect of their ART , in order to promote other aspects of their ART,, that is the Artist's choice, and the Artist's choice ALONE.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art) can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.It is all about Artist Control.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy
Do I have to elaborate ?
But to be clear. Copyright and Patent Laws are Morally Just and a Civil Right for Artists and Inventors ( maybe even according to Natural Law.)
IF some -non Artists feel , CopyRIGHTS stifles their economic opportunity is some instances -TOUGH.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re:Radio changed that, it allowed the labels to promote their music AT NO COST.
Not true. There is always cost , in paid promotion staff and their needed materials.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art) can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.
can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.
To me , this is the core point of copyright law. Some poor artists ( or musicians who have strait jobs) may see no need to enforce their copyright control,, But others who make some $$ may see a need most or some times.
Personally , I post some of my songs online for all to record if they wish , but other songs I choose to keep offline.
It is all about Artist Control.
With that in mind re-read from the Good article :
"I'M WITH THE BAND
There is, however, another view about the purpose of copyright law. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to establish copyright protections for authors and inventors to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”
To achieve that goal, copyright law creates “a system to ‘incentivize’ creators and their backers so they can be rewarded for the fruits of their labors so they can continue to create new works,” Goldring says.
If the ultimate goal is to promote the creation of new works, then perhaps it isn’t really necessary to take stronger legal actions against illegal file-sharing because the evidence does not suggest that it is hindering the creation of new works by musicians. That is, at least, the contention of Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf. They note in their paper that, despite the growth of illegal file-sharing, more music than ever is being created and made available to the public. “This makes it difficult to argue that weaker copyright protection has had a negative impact on artists’ incentives to be creative,” their paper states.
The reasons for the surge in musical output aren’t entirely clear to Oberholzer-Gee, Strumpf and other researchers. They suggest that part of the answer is that making music isn’t just about making money. For a lucky few music can be highly lucrative, but most musicians can’t even afford to make it their full-time job.
“Given these poor prospects, why are there so many musicians?” ask Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf in their paper. “One explanation is that musicians enjoy their profession. Under this view, musicians take pleasure from creating and performing music, as well as aspects of the lifestyle such as flexible hours and the lack of an immediate boss.++++ If this theory is correct, the economic impact of file-sharing is not likely to have a major impact on music creation.”+++++
========================
"If this theory is correct, the economic impact of file-sharing is not likely to have a major impact on music creation.”
"Music creation" for the pursuit of Art for Arts sake, is very different than trying to make a living out of it.
For a struggling full-time musician, every CD sale , legal download, and paying gig is how they feed themselves.
If fans of smaller grossing , but well respected artists --- like Steve Erle** for exmp. -- can get the music for free , when they would otherwise pay, they are taking food off of the Musicians table.
IT is rightly against to law , to take for free, what you should be legally paying for.
-------------------------------------
( **One of the best , but not a household name at all , unless the household is full of musicians.
http://www.steveerle.com/ )
Next >>