Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
RIAA's Rosen 'writing Iraq copyright laws'
Doctor V:
This belongs in the Lounge.
The Iraqi people have just finished with a war and many of them, not all, but many, are suffering still from it. Was the purpose of this war really liberation? If so, then the Iraqi people should have the right to democratically write their own laws. The absolute last thing they want or need is American special interest shoved up their asses. Rosen has shown time and time again that she does not really care about common people at all, and believes content holders should have unlimited control over their content. Putting someone who represents a special interest group in charge of writing any of Iraq's laws is just evil. Iraqi copyright laws should be determined by Iraqi opinion, perhaps influenced by *world* opinion. But absolutely not by the opinion of one who represents a small handful of business owners in the US. Its these issues that mark the difference between liberation and occupation.
And I could really care less about Yoko Ono. Current copyright laws, 70 years past the life of the author, guarentee that Yoko Ono's grandchildren will live very lavish lives. If is wasn't for these laws, they would probably have to *gasp* get jobs! The wolud have to go to school, and become productive members of society, *Oh the horror!* If copyright laws were set to only 25 years past the life of the author, Yoko Ono would still be far far richer than most people could ever hope to be. And all because she married John Lennon, thats it, she dosn't really have to lift a finger ever again. Good thing, cause if it wasn't for the fact that copyright goes so far past the life of the artist, she might acutally have to *make music thats good!* and if she can't do that she would be forced to *OH MY GOD!!!* get a fucking JOB!
V
suselinux:
Does the RIAA protect american labels only or do they affect any label sold in the US of nay :confused:
Doctor V:
My belief is that the generally only protect their onw labels, leaving smaller and indy records alone. But many of the laws they push affect all records, sometimes for the benefit of, and sometimes to the detriment of the smaller guys. But they try to push their will over the whole world, not just the USA, trying to protect their content wherever its sold. Also, I know at least two of the 5 big lables that make up the bulk of the RIAA are not American companys, Sony and Bertlesman.
Faust:
Doctor V, "you dropping wisdom home boy," (well said)
Flap why should people have to give out their music free? I mean these people need an income and I see no problem with rewarding them for their art. Of course "some" bands (cough backstreet boys) may be in need of a bit of "free software style improvement" but it is technically an artistic work. Would you "improve" a Rembrant? Would you rewrite Anthony and Cleopatra? There is nothing wrong with an artist making some cash if it's fairly priced.
flap:
Here we go again...
The "free" is about freedom, not price. An artist/developer should have the right to sell their cd, or painting, or software, for a million dollars if they want, but they *shouldn't* be allowed to prohibit other people from sharing their work once they have obtained it.
Free software isn't (unlike Open Source) only about having the source code available; it's about giving users the right to redistribute and share. People should have the right to share music/art, but the right to modify it isn't particularly important, as you say. You seem to be confusing the purely practical principles of Open Source with the ideological principles of free software. As I've said before, one of the reasons why open source isn't very good is that its ideas aren't applicable to anything other than software. The ideas of freedom, on the other hand, are directly applicable to works of art such as music.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version