Posted on 04/02/2005 4:37:22 AM PST by billorites
As the berobed Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sat pestering the suits who came before them days ago to contest Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster...
Conundrum #1: Has the Internet, the most powerful information pump the world has ever known, drowned the incentive to create in words or images?
Conundrum #2: Has the Internet effectively displaced the antique notion of the profit-motive with a newer, unstoppable reality that everything on the Internet is, if it wants to be, "free"?
Conundrum #3: How is it that millions of Americans who wouldn't cross the street against a red light will sleep like lambs after downloading onto their computers a Library of Alexandria's worth of music or movies--for free.
Even writers gotta eat. But this means one has to buy into the validity of eeeek, "profit." Absent that, there's no hope.
New business models like iTunes and techno-fixes such as micropayments matter a lot, but the unshakable reality is that digits and microchips are not like any previous reproducing technology. If you can digitize it, you can grab it, for free.
No matter what the Supreme Court decides about Grokster's 15 minutes of fame, this is a philosophical issue for the long run. The Web isn't just a technology; it's become an ideology. The Web's birth as a "free" medium and the downloading ethic have engendered the belief that culture--songs, movies, fiction, journalism, photography--should be clickable into the public domain, for "everyone."
What a weird ethic. Some who will spend hundreds of dollars for iPods and home theater systems won't pay one thin dime for a song or movie. So Steve Jobs and the Silicon Valley geeks get richer while the new-music artists sweating through three sets in dim clubs get to live on Red Bull. Where's the justice in that?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Not only is your statement simplistic, it is false - unless you add the words "without permission."
Since you would apparently take the position that when you were trading tapes, YOU did not trade in music where the copyright holder forbade such trading, it is unbelievably self-righteous of you to act as if you are the only one who did not, or would not, do so.
That's okay, though. Your view is the past. The stupidest thing the RIAA ever did was to go after Napster. Killing it was like killing a malealuca tree - it just spread more seeds. File-sharing is here to stay, and until the RIAA and its sycophants - including you - figure out how to use technology to their advantage rather than attempting to snuff it out, they will continue to alienate their market instead of cultivating it.
But I'm sure you enjoy playing weddings.
little venues can't afford bands once a week, BANDS LOSE MONEY for little venues. Trust me I know.
I knew you were a bar owner. How funny. The bar owner trying to lower his cost of entertainment, the entertainment providers trying to maintain his income from same. Self interest abounds.
Not all of them. I get paid $200 a WEEK to play in a very small bar. I don't know the square footage, but it's got about 12 bar stools and maybe 7 tables. But as long as they keep drinking and having fun, they keep having me back. It aint out of the goodness of their hearts.
Well duh. That is what we're talking about. Sheesh.
If I extend what you are saying, effectively the way the recording industry is utilizing copyright is actually stifling creativity? Essentially keeping the possible next U2 from gaining a venue in which to increase their pupularity all because they might break out into a rendition of 'Happy Birthday' for someone?
Very much so. I enjoy satisfying all my customers.
It may be. I seem to recall it only dates back to the 40s or so, but I forget.
There's an ugly balance to patent law that has been lost in copyright to protect the corporate franchise. I think that's what bothers people the most. As we've seen with that Terri-somebody business going on elsewhere, no revulsion justifies breaking the law.
Ironically, in locking copyright up like Houdini, holders only encourage the escape. I'd like nothing more than to see properly protected, properly respected, far far more limited copyright. Superextended copyright has severely damaged creativity in the music industry, for it has allowed artists to live on old creations rather than fighting along with the new. The generational-skipping of music styles is a result of copyright rules as much as anything else.
The Van Zant family would be more busily competing in the battle over musical styles and ideas if they had to fight to keep their good name rather than sitting back and collecting old rent. Imagine if the 15-year patent law were applied to copyright. What a marvelous, mad capitalistic rush it would be!
Out of the ball park. Yes that is exactly correct, I'd love to give a local bands a chance to show there stuff and build a reputation but I can't afford the obscene license fees. And neither can all the other local bars. My bar is 1800 sq ft, a big crowd is 30 or more people, most around here are the same size little neighborhood bars. That is who these laws are hurting, local bands and little bars, local bans can't get a start and little bars get sued. Little venues don't make money on live music, they do it cause they like their customers and love music. Now if they try they get sued. So screw it, no bands.
I don't have problems with copyright, if it was used for what it was intended. For example, Huey Lewis and the News sued Ray Parker Jr. for stealing a riff and including it into the song 'Ghostbusters' without permission. Ry Parker Jr. was thereby making a profit off of someone else's work. Copyright was properly enforced.
Sending thugs to break down the doors of people trading tapes in a speakeasy, or attempting to shut down Used Record stores, is NOT a proper use of copyright.
If someone were taking songs that were digitally downloaded, burning them into a CD, and selling them, then there is a valid copyright.
If patent law were treated similarly to the way the Music industry treats copyright, innovation would come to a standstill, with companies suing the bejabbers out of each other ( good for the lawyers ).
Should read, " then there is a valid case for infringing on a copyright. ". Not enough coffee yet.
I guess the world will have to settle for the Music industry permissible 'American Idol' for the next U2. Sigh.
I can assure you I know what I am talking about and I can assure you the bar is not paying license fees and I can further assure you the bar is losing money the nights you play. they take the lose cause they like your music and they want to keep some "energy" at the bar. They think overall it will help the business.
Yes. Yes. No. No.
Which demolishes your argument.
That's an interesting topic for discussion. As I have said, I don't know what the length should be. I personally don't see any problem with artists living off their accomplishments. I don't care if Don Henley writes another song or not. But I do think he should own Hotel California.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.