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 ...
Yup
The musician DOES pay fees, just like the customers who buy drinks there. It's called shifting costs, and it's basic economics. If the bar didn't have to pay fees to have songs played in their venue, then the musicians could be paid a little more andthe drinks and food could be a little cheaper. It's the same as when an employer pays half of an employee's SS; the employee would be a fool if he thought that it didn't affect his bottom line too.
And if you never make money playing live music, that's your problem. Nobody is forcing you to do it.
I don’t know. I was less than 10.
Nope
Correct, which is why I rarely do it any more.
So they will actually have to go out and perform (work) to earn their money, instead of sitting around pulling in royalties and in general spouting off and doing drugs.
My My! What a concept. Might even have to stay sober to remember what town they are in.
I live in Key Largo FL now, but I’ll swipe them off Kazza and have a listen. ;^)
I'll find a link you you. give me a minute.
I'll go along with that. Further, they can only lease their rights for a limited time -- i.e. once, say 7 years, the lease to a music company is up all rights revert back to the artist giving artist a chance to negotiate a new lease up until said work enters the public domain.
Of course it's theft; you download someone's song without paying for it. If you went into a record store and stole the artist's album you would get thrown in jail. Why does it change when it's on the internet? If actually paying for something instead of stealing it means I am living in the past, so be it. The future doesn't look so good.
Hmmm. I am of several minds concerning the "theft" of art. First, are musical works ever really stolen? At least in one sense, no. The music remains, no matter how many people hear it. On the other hand, one should remain in control of that which one creates. Certainly the theft of a CD from the store is indeed theft. What, though, if I overhear someone's CD player playing the CD and pay nothing for it? Have I not stolen the music, at least in one sense? How about if I invite 25 close friends over and play music? 50? 100? 10,000? Can I give the CD away to someone else, or sell it? Perhaps I should only be able to hear the music I buy once, as at a concert. I have not researched the law on this, but I imagine there are some answers there, not that the law is always right (RIP Terri Schiavo).
On another hand, whatever happened to art for art's sake; to people driven to create and perform their art, without thought of pecuniary gain? I remember the "starving artist" and its numerous examples of classical musicians who never made much, if any, money for their work. The questions and answers are difficult. Perhaps a musician should not record his music at all, and thus ensure that it won't be stolen. Just the musings of a non-artist.
Because the purpose of copyrights and patents is to enchance society (i.e. the consumer, the public) not give the artist income for life. Once an adequate incentive is provided for the creator-type, the copyright has served its purpose. You want patents to be allowed to be sat on forever and ever?
You dirty dog thief. Don't you realize a screenwriter worked hard at that phrase? And I bet you didn't even think about paying royalties.
It's not theft, it's fair use. If he quoted a significant portion of the screenplay, he could be in trouble. He didn't; he only quoted a sentence.
That technology is now working against the entertainment industry, is a just comeuppance for the entertainment industry--which has so far been unjustly benefiting from technology.
People should be allowed unfettered access and use of this improved--and empowering--technology.
Those who fear entertainment will be destroyed because of this, need not worry.
All that will come of this will be a democratization of entertainment.
And a rise in the quality of entertainment.
What would be the liability if one should sneak in some covers?
I’ve got to run, take the kids to Grandma…
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.