Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:34:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
354 times
|
| |
|
|
Kirby Warden wrote:
>
> The whole problem here in the U.S. is that corporations don't want to miss
> out on a single penny. The recent Copyright laws (DMCA) basicly state that
> if you didn't pay for it, then you're a criminal... if you want to see what
> something is, pay for it.
>
> There are so many things I would never have bought had I not friends who
> would give me copies of music or movies. When I left Highschool and began
> earning money, I went out and bought all the things I had sampled and liked.
> Most people want the real deal, not just some free knock-off.
>
> The idea that my giving away a couple of copies to friends, who don't have
> any money to spare, can be considered a criminal offense is sickening.
> Corporations are not losing money this way. Most people who get these free
> copies simply don't have the money to spend to begin with.
>
> One argument is that prices have increased because of pirating, however,
> prices have increased so rapidly that many people have simply lost their
> purchasing power. Yet, instead of producing a more accessable product, they
> came up with the pirating scapegoat.
>
> And that is my unprofessional, uneducated opinion on the matter.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, not only should you keep your copy, but make a
> couple extras for your friends as well.
It is true that copyrights are dominated by corporations, but the idea
that the author should have control over his work is still valid.
Limited sharing with friends should be encouraged since this will entice
some of them to buy the work for themselves, but by limited I mean
loaning them a CD for a week or two (so they can listen to it, not make
their own copy) or whatever (even perhaps making a copy which they
listen to once).
I personally expect the internet revolution to eventually change the
face of how entertainment is distributed. I expect artists to follow one
of the following models or some combination:
1. the artist is patronized by an entity with big bucks, that entity
keeps the artist happy, while sharing the creative output with the world
(for nothing, or through some kind of money making venture)
2. the artist distributes their works to a fan club which encourages
it's members to respect the artists property rights and whose members
keep the artist happy (either by donations [like how Lugnet is run],
dues [for $50 a year, you can download as many songs from my site for
your own personal use <not your friends> as you like], or buying
individual "copies" of the works {I just cut a CD for myself and my
three best friends, here's 40 bucks since you ask for 10 bucks a CD]).
3. the artist truly works for free
Of course model 1 implies even MORE corporate control of art, but so
long as the market is allowed to be free, this model will not dominate.
I expect model 2 to be the dominant model. Really the difference between
model 1 and models 2/3 is that an entity other than the artist controls
the distribution. Model 3 will be used in part by almost everyone: "Feel
free to download these MP3s and play them all you like, if you love this
music, come on back and join our club/buy the other CDs/send me some
bucks because you love me."
Every copy of a work which is shared without being paid for does
increase the cost to those who pay for their copies. While a certain
percentage of people don't have the money to pay for the art, I think
that's a really limited percentage, and it still cheapens the art.
Frank
a computer programmer who can only afford to buy LEGO toys because
people don't just give away software to all their friends...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) I think you must mean: "A computer programmer who can afford to buy LEGO toys in spite of the fact that people give away software to all their friends because corporations have to pay for their copies." "What is" is that information is free. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) How? If I give you a CD that I duped, that you would never in a million years have purchased, I don't see how it effects the profits of the music company that made the CD that I bought. It just doesn't! Same with books and software and (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| The whole problem here in the U.S. is that corporations don't want to miss out on a single penny. The recent Copyright laws (DMCA) basicly state that if you didn't pay for it, then you're a criminal... if you want to see what something is, pay for (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
