Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:02:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
552 times
|
| |
|
|
More quibbling over the details...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> I also think that despite the ease of distribution, the middle men will
> NOT disappear. However, I think they will become more respected. We will
> subscribe to review web sites which we trust. Those sites will provide
> links to the artists pages, where we will then download the art under
> the terms offered by the artist (pay immediately, try it and pay if we
> like it, join the fan club with annual dues, or whatever).
I disagree with this view -- you are basically asserting that gatekeepers
are not only here to stay but will somehow increase in their cultural value.
The reality is that it takes a lot of work to discover to what degree one
does or does not agree with a given reviewer -- basically, in a world where
P2P sharing can occur more quickly than reading a series of reviews to
figure out where a reviewer stands, no one will read reviews they will
simply find out what they like for themselves.
"Hey Rick, check out Le Tigre."
::6 minutes later, P2P Mp3s fly::
"You're right, their stuff rocks!"
When I like it well enough, I will buy the disk. I don't need programmed
radio, promoters, false hits boosted up the charts with record industry
money, and I sure don't need reviewers. Let me listen to it and get out of
my way. I see a future where music artists (as an example) may be their own
gatekeepers -- releasing lower quality digital recordings for preview, and
higher quality recordings for a price.
If I hadn't listened several times to MP3s of Lou Reed's "Metal Machine
Music" I would never have discovered how great it is and I wouldn't
therefore have bought it -- which I did!
> I always liked Borland's "like a book" license which said you could have as
> many copies as you wanted so long as only one person was ever using the
> software at a time.
Actually, it has all ways been my understanding that this is exactly what
licenses to use software have always been -- despite whatever MS may think
to the contrary, and despite whatever is written in their licensing
agreements. Since you have to open the wrapper to find out what the
agreement is, there is no REAL opportunity to reject MS-style agreements --
consequently, the agreement exists under duress and without recourse for the
user. Basically, such licensing agreements are garbage.
> I am interested in seeing where Linux really goes. My feeling is that it
> will never be as successefull as it could have been had it been under a
> licensing agreement which required compensation.
I can't begin to see why this would be true. Is UNIX somehow a thousand
times better than the BSD running Lugnet, or some other open source OS flavors?
Meanwhile...
My objection to excessive worrying over copyrights has to do with stuff that
is just bloody stupid. Case in point: I have heard that there are music CDs
that will not play in computer drives. If I ever bought such a disk without
warning that it was thusly limited, I would find a way to defeat the
protection (thanks Philips!) and return the product as unusable. How are we
supposed to get rid of TVs, stereos, and telephones and move towards
convergent hardware if media becomes hardware specific? What ever happened
to my right to make a backup copy? What ever happened to my right to listen
to something on the hardware of my choosing?
Frankly, these music/film industry types are just shooting themselves in the
foot -- nothing motivates crackers like egregiously unfair practices on the
part of the corporations. Right - give us reasons to work around your
protections AND your distribution channels. When we are done with our
"work", we won't much feel like paying the piper or his middleman.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) While I agree with you on the value of convergent media, I don't know that one's "right to listen to something on the hardware of [his] choosing" is really the crux of it. That is, you're welcome to listen to your Maurice Chevalier 78's on (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) Well, Lugnet is a gatekeeper. I expect the big music publishers to start to fade away. I see a future with middlemen with a smaller audience and focus. On the other hand, I also expect some large middlemen to emerge. I bet bars would much (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| Rather than try and respond to specific points, I'm going to try an lay out my thoughts. Richard and Christopher have raised some interesting issues. Clearly the ideal is that the creator of a work get fairly compensated. This suggests that the more (...) (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
|
|
|
|
