Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 51843	2004-12-01 07:37:00	The begining of the Compaign for Copyright Fairness?	Captive (3159)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
298595	2004-12-02 14:46:00	Well said from your perspective :-) First note: I have about 30-40 Original CDs i have bought from both stores and trademe.co.nz, under 1 dozen songs from mp3.com, and under 2 dozen free audio loops from www.flashkit.com I have 0 mp3s beyond that which are inapprorpiate if thats what your thinking Second note: I don't agree things should be completely free. In the world things have cost... and if there isn't an incentive to do something it may not be done However if the incentive is geared to the favour of the large corporations and impede society that is also an imbalance i would assume Personally i would like to see more harmony, and less corporates able to designate what happens and control what people know. I have noted various large organisations stating it as theft, theft implies there was a loss, because something is copied may not always correlate to loss, in some cases it may however. In the same senses it was implied that if someone recorded with VHS that the TV or similar stand to lose a significant amount of money, and i would assume scare tactics could have been reduced if people had independant information. Earlier on people may use scare tactics about things when people don't have understanding of how it works for themselves, so facts portrayed can seem more believable without fair representation. If the parliment was made by 90% military lobbyists do you think what would be informed as what parliment thinks is appropriate and wants to achieve would be different? thank you for writing to me	Captive (3159)
298596	2004-12-02 16:19:00	Thats an interesting point you bring up about the large corporations and theft. Take the RIAA for example. At the moment they're trying to claw money back from errant p2p downloaders. I can pretty well guarantee that not one of the artists involved receive one more cent extra as a result of their court action. Personally, I think a lot is going to change over the next few years. The public, and in the case of music, the artists, are starting to wise up to the fact that the major recording labels are on the brink of becoming an anachronism. When the day comes when an artist is able to release their own work over a medium such as the net, more or less on a one-to-one basis with the consumer, at a price far more suited to both parties, then I think the big boys will really know their time is up. I see it happening already. I'm talking mainstream, not your odd small indy outfit. The only real incentive in signing with a major label is to get the global advertising and marketing exposure. Once someone finds their way round that particular problem, it'll only be a matter of time before the monopoly wannabes, i.e. the big labels like Sony, realise that their bluff has been called. At least, that is what I would like to see happen. It may all just be a pipe-dream, of course. That and the fact that not everyone has a computer. There will be a demand for hardcopy for a long time yet, I should imagine, something only companies with a lot of fiscal backing can supply. Of course, the large companies will fight tooth and nail to maintain their shareholders profits. The scary thing is, with their almost infinite resources, any chance of the small man winning will be quite slim, to say the least. Its a hard question to answer.	Catweazle (2535)
298597	2004-12-02 16:33:00	> I dunno . Stealing is stealing . I'm a musician . if > someone nicks my songs, I'm out of pocket . It doesn't > encourage me to produce anymore . If no one pays for > the right to hear my music, how can I live? If read abook from the libary have I stolen anything I didnt pay anyone . The second you broadcast a song it can be copied for further annaylisis buy the conusumer . if it is not used for gain where is the issue . it was proven years ago that sampling and radio recording promote alubm/C/D sales . Their has been a pecentage of bootlegging (off one type or another) since their has been music it is part of it . . > > Did you know that the average signed musician is > lucky if they get paid $1 or so for every full price > CD sold, unless they release independently? Yes I did this is the problem . It it the corporations that created this stupid situation soon they will be saying I can not hum a tune you Wrote, unless I pay them . The entire distribution system, in the A/V industry needes a complete overhaull/replacment . The current model no longer satisfiys the artist or the consumer . ~Patenting software is like patenting the text of a book . Neither is necessary to protect Intellectual Property~ (Unknown) Stallman argues that ( ~ Like music, progress in software is dependent on the ideas that have gone before . The creative and innovative part is not the ideas themselves, necessarily, but the particular combinations that make up the whole . Patent the component ideas, and no one can write anything new . ~ (Richard Stallman) Patenting a Commercial business S/W package is one thing . Patenting a mousu click to purchase and saying every user on the internett who has this metheod on thier site must pay an annuall licence fee for all time is totally rediculeious . Operating systems are like tunes the code behind them should not be controlled by corporations . The stupid American system of extending the copywright laws beyond the old 10 year period and allowing the manipulation of drug and S/w patents to run them in perputity . is at the very core of this problem . If the globall system returned to the 10 year frame, so many problems would evaporate . Pretty soon someone will probably copyright "Little Red Riding Hood" and no kindy Teacher will be able to read that story to children without paying a public broadcast fee . Software patents are not nessecary the money is in the service/support of the package . An idependant site was started to support WIN(* because M/S wer going to stop support for it . This site was instrumentall in forcig M/S to continue support for 98 in a limitred form site . Simply because M/S could not afford to have a major free supprot site for a M/S product in the market because other thing would of course grow from it . The best thing to happen to the software world, would be for someone to out the M/S source code's then all the S/W coppyright problems would go away . As to "Free Lunch" The stones showed how to beat the Corporate Giants, and in the process became a performing Giant like no other, The death of John Bonnaham (SP?) removed the only real opposition . D .	drb1 (4492)
298598	2004-12-02 16:54:00	drb1, I'm with you totally, except for one little niggling thing. If I rent a book from a library, I don't get to keep it ;) I have to agree vehemently about the software aspect though. IP copyrights, in that respect, can only damage things and stifle any progress.	Catweazle (2535)
298599	2004-12-02 17:15:00	> If I rent a book from a library, I don't get to keep > it ;) > But you get to keep the knowelege inside it, and any notes you took from it, or anything you copied verbatum . The verbatum part only becomes and issue if you then: lease, sell, lend, or publish and dont Acknoweledge the source . I understand you have to eat, This area will I think allways be a minor issue, the current distribution model exebarates it out of all proportion	drb1 (4492)
298600	2004-12-02 19:02:00	I think that p2p music swapping is an untapped resource for the musician. It means that musicians can get there music out there without having to rely on the big corporations. If a musician/band becomes popular, then people will pay to go and see them live. The more popular, the bigger the concert, the more they can charge for a ticket. That is where they can make there money. The recording industry will then be sidelined. Perhaps that is what they are afraid of. I know it take lots of money to run a concert, but at the end of the day, why do people make music. Is it to get rich or entertain people.?	Craigb (688)
298601	2004-12-02 20:58:00	Catweazle (et al) have a look at the links in this post (pressf1.pcworld.co.nz). Mindawn pays the artists directly and, although I don't know what the norm is, I would guess that the payments in that scheme are far higher than what a label is willing to cough up.	Murray P (44)
298602	2004-12-02 21:39:00	> A better analogy would be someone breaking into your house, scanning your TV, making an exact working duplicate and taking the duplicate away leaving you with your original working TV . Would you mind? That analogy is flawed because if you steal music you're not stealling from me directly . You're stealing the right to reproduce the sound or visual . The creator of the music owns the right to reproduce it and has the right to charge anyone who wants to play it, usually that right is transferred to a new owner . A radio station pays each time a song is played, even a church has to include details of the license whenever song lyrics are displayed on an OHP or data projector . I said above that you're not stealling from me directly, but you are increasing the amount that I have to pay if I want to own the CD, Video or DVD . There's no need to enter into a discussion about whether music, movies or software would drop in price if more people paid for them . But it makes economic sense that if a business dowsn't make as much as expected over then it will increase the price of the product to make up for the short fall . Finally, even if 99 . 9% of people think that it's OK to use media without paying,, it stil doesn't make it morally right .	Spout (6433)
298603	2004-12-03 00:19:00	Just because A occurs, C occurs, however if B doesnt factor into the equasion, and it may or may not sometimes then C may not be true. Advocates for the creators monopoly however may very much favour saying that because something is copied money is lost, which is not always the cost. Morally your comparing it to theft, see above. It would be nice if people didnt try and use primitive models which maybe certain agencies may portray as the correct one in light of what benefits they stand to make but one more in tune with what actually occurs. You'll note legally its not theft, its copyright infringement, even the current law before modification to the new applicable level states that.	Captive (3159)
298604	2004-12-03 00:36:00	> Advocates for the creators monopoly however may very much favour saying that because something is copied money is lost, which is not always the cost. No, money is not lost - but profit which should a=have been generated or earned, is not generated or earned. > You'll note legally its not theft, its copyright infringement However you dress it up the fact of the matter is that if you take/use something to which you're not entitled to it's plain wrong.	Spout (6433)
1 2 3