I love "The Lighthouse Song".
Absolutely inspiring music. Very much to my liking. Again, thank you.
Posted on 06/05/2002 4:09:50 AM PDT by Skooz
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Popular music has been upended by every technological advance from electricity and the phonograph to cassette tapes and recordable CDs. The switch from analog to digital accelerated the pace of illicit duplication and distribution, sounding the loudest alarm yet. As Napster struggles to survive, other sites from Gnutella to KaZaa are filling the void. Last week, labels and music publishers sued Audiogalaxy, a booming file-swapping network that lured 3.5 million users in March.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Are you smoking crack or are you just that freakin senile? I'm the one who's saying the words of the founders written in the constitution extend to copyright holders today. Everyone else here seems to be saying "music should be free" and are advocating no copyright protection that the founders sought to ensure.
Some of you people are about as bright as a black hole. Get some education before you start rambling on with crap that makes you look foolish.
OK, Mr. smartass, what would you like to enlighten me with? I don't accept your hasty conjecture as any kind of authority. What history are you reading from? I know my business well. Test me. Don't insinuate I don't know my business without any substantiation. That makes you look like a very petty coward. So, out with it. Show me what history you're talking about.
That's also a bit of an overstatement, I think. Speaking only for myself - although I think there are many here who might agree with me - it seems to me that your argument basically boils down to "it's right because it's the law". And it's perfectly possible (and consistent) to recognize that this is the current state of the law, while at the same time arguing that the law should be some other way.
IMO, when done properly, copyright benefits both content creators and society. But when it's done as it currently is, it benefits content creators solely, while resting the costs upon society solely. One side gets all the benefits, and one side gets all the costs. And that is most definitely not how the framers of the constitution envisioned patents and copyrights working. Life plus 75 years (or a straight 95 years for corporate creations) is simply ridiculous. This law is designed to benefit content creators solely, and worse, not even all content creators - it benefits corporate and institutional entities alone, since they do not suffer from piddling things that individual creators do - little things like, say, death.
Walt Disney is dead. Walt gets no benefit from extending the copyright term. The Disney Corporation, however, stands to reap huge benefits at the expense of everyone else, for no good reason at all. For copyright terms to be structured as they currently are, and to be as long as they are, is simply wrong, even if copyright itself isn't.
Some of you people are about as bright as a black hole.Read the clause. Why IP protection? To promote progress. Not to make authors (much less those never-mentioned publishers) rich. Is more protection more progress? No: it is for a limited time. Considering you can't get libel protection when you are dead and buried, the modern view of "limited" is looking pretty shakey when put next to good old Original Intent.
Read it however you want, but you can't escape the fact that your opinion doesn't count for didley squat when it's dischordant with the law (the Constitution left it open to Congress to decide term of copyright) and the Berne Convention. Congress has determined the best balance of IP rights vs. public interest and has found what I believe is a fair balance.
I agree. If you think the copyright law should be changed, petition Congress to change it. As it is I think copyright law has found a good balance.
I agree with you that good copyright law should weigh the best interests of the copyright holder and the general public. Like I said, I think we're there now. If you don't think so, tell me how you benefit, (to use your example) if Lady and the Tramp went into the public domain so many years after Walt Disney died, by buying a DVD copy of it from some entity other than the Disney Corporation.
First off, I wouldn't have to buy a copy at all, would I? I could simply make my own, from any source I saw fit. And I could show it in public places, to the benefit of my neighbors, and expose them to material that they might not have seen otherwise. I could add or remove material as I saw fit, or create an entirely new edition in order to retell the story in some other fashion that others might find interesting.
And the characters would be available for other derivative works, allowing others to create more new content, and thereby adding value and providing new creative works to society. If current copyright law had been extant in the 19'th century, the world would have been deprived of Chopin's pieces which borrowed heavily from themes by J.S. Bach. And that would have been a loss to us all, I think.
You're thinking in simple terms of how the single original work entering the public domain benefits those who are interested in owning a copy of only that single original work. But the benefits of a work entering the public domain extend much further than that...
I love "The Lighthouse Song".
Absolutely inspiring music. Very much to my liking. Again, thank you.
BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!
Now that is the most side-splitting absolutely most hilarious thing I've read on this thread the whole time. Could you make yourself look any more foolish? Could you show us all how little you research your statements??? Go look through my postings and see what I've said about the war on drugs. Look at my profile.
Had you bothered to research before shooting your mouth off, it would have taken you all of 10 seconds to see that I was, am, and always will be firmly in the anti-WOD camp.
Dolt!
They are great. Really creative and talented. I hope you'll support the artist by now going and buying the album. Otherwise, there's no real incentive for Nickel Creek to record another album, nor for their label to release it.
Since a group this talented must have a ton of other material available, I intend to do just that.
It's been a long time since I've had incentive to go looking to buy a CD. I think Allison Krauss was the last reason I went a-shopping.
I'm sure they (Nickle Creek) would release another album if it meant they would become popular among the public.
This would make a concert tour more profitable, and this is where they make their money.
They will never see any substantial royalties from their label or from record sales.
The object is to become popular. The money will come after that happens.
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.