Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
RIAA's Rosen 'writing Iraq copyright laws'
HibbeeBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
these copyright regulations appear to have no interest in actually allowing the creator of a work to have control over how liberally their work is distributed.
--- End quote ---
Some copyright laws are out of order but on the whole, do they not attempt protect the artist ? Using music as an example, if the artist intends on making a living from selling music, he can't just give his product away and have anybody with a PC and internet access a means to distribute the artists work for free. Like it or not, music is a commodity that can be bought and sold or if the artist prefers, given away. Where it gets fuzzy, is once the music has been bought by the consumer, can the consumer then distribute it for free or otherwise ?
Faust:
What part of the Iraqi law let people "pirate" an artists new song? All it meant was that after 25 years of profit it became public domain. 25 years is more than enough time to bleed the customers dry, come on!
HibbeeBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Faust:
What part of the Iraqi law let people "pirate" an artists new song? All it meant was that after 25 years of profit it became public domain. 25 years is more than enough time to bleed the customers dry, come on!
--- End quote ---
Why, because you say so ?!! I'm sure Yoko Ono would disagree along with the rest of the people that have a finger in the Beatles pie.
As far as I am concerned, anybody listening to Madonna's little dittys should get their ears chopped off, we would be doing them a favour !!
:D
Faust:
I agree re the madonna thing.
Come on, who the hell would *listen* to Yoko Ono sing? The only reason she gets money is because she gets to ride the Beatles 4000+ year copyright. That isn't the artist profiting, it's just blatant profiteering.
HibbeeBoy:
quote:Originally posted by Faust:
I agree re the madonna thing.
Come on, who the hell would *listen* to Yoko Ono sing? The only reason she gets money is because she gets to ride the Beatles 4000+ year copyright. That isn't the artist profiting, it's just blatant profiteering.
--- End quote ---
Fuck, no one want to hear Yoko sing. She is however in control of John Lennon's estate and his assets, i.e. his music.
In most cases, commercial music is shite anyway but, the artist went to the bother of recording it (whther it's music or a book) and the artist should determine the longivity of the copyright, not "you" or the publisher, e.g. Walt Disney Sony Music. The artist should also be incontrol of how his work is distributed. If the artist does not want his work to be freely available on the internet, what is the problem ? There are tons of musicians who publish their work on the internet for free and frankly, most of that is shite too. I agree that a copyright should not last indefinately but again, the consumer should not dictate when that is.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version