|
Posted by Kris Krieger on January 3, 2008, 4:39 pm
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>>>> If you possess mp3 files you may be in violation of the law.
>>>>> No, you can't rip a CD you purchased to mp3 format on your
>>>>> computer. If you are out in public with an mp3 player you could be
>>>>> arrested on the spot for suspicion of possession of copywritten
>>>>> material. Copies of copywritten material are considered
>>>>> *unauthorized* copies. So what is an example of an *authorized*
>>>>> copy?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319276,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If your mp3 player has lithium batteries you could be suspected of
>>>>> being a tarriss.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119911051123859361.html?mod=googlen
>>>>> ew s_wsj
>>>> http://fusionanomaly.net/vinylisstealing.gif
>>> I think thats exactly where all of this is going.
>>> There is nothing unique or artistic about a CD.
>>> Its just a mechanical copy of what might be considered an artistic
>>> expression.
>>> I deal with one-of-a-kind creations and people pay me thousands of
>>> dollars for each one.
>>> *They cannot be repeated as each one is unique.*
>>> It takes an especially mediocre mind to twist itself in knots over a
>>> thing that can be purchased online for 88 cents - an mp3 file.
>>> If these so-called artists created unique works of art, live
>>> performances, they would find the copyrighting issues disappearing
>>> over night. But then, they'd actually have to *work* to produce
>>> their income rather than relying on royalties.
>>
>> From my perspective, it's not about royalties etc., it's about
>> putting the time, effort, creativity, etc. into composing or writing
>> something, and then having someone else copy it, and claim it as
>> their own.
> > It only adds insult to injury if they turn around and make money
> > from it.
>
> Seriously considering undertaking anything in a complex and dynamic
> world would seem to inspire a few more perspectives, if only to,
> ideally, get a better handle on reality.
>
> And what if everyone knew that making copies and $ from your work was
> a possibility? Would that change anything and, if so, how, why and for
> whom, etc.?
I explained in the paragraphs below.
>
>> If I give someone free copies of my compositionsm or writings, that's
>> one thing, but I don't like the idea of them turning around and
>> giving free copies to the entire world.
>
> You don't have to like it, but if you're going to, say, compose music
> and stockpile all your notation in open-air, unlocked buildings in
> every town around the world, the wind is going to blow it all about,
> and some people are going to pick it up and do something with it--
> maybe sell them as-is; do live shows with them; or compose original
> scores, as inspired by them. What fun!
No, that is still my choice.
I don't oppose personal enjoyment. I also am not necessarily opposed to
copies, as long as attribution is kept with the work.
Selling is another matter. It just seems a bit unethical to me to sell
someone else's work.
It's sort oflike the GNU licensed programs. THey're free, but only with
the understanding that they won't be 'relabelled' and sold.
A different thing is only charging for the CD and postage. It costs a
certain amount to buy a CD, package it, and mail it. But that is not
'selling the work", that's just saying, "I'll mail you this neat stuff if
you send me enough to cover the packaging and mailing".
Which, of course, is why I'm not, and never will be, rich - I don't see
life as one big money-making opportunity. Rather than thinking, "Oh,
hey, I can sell this work", I'm mroe like, "Oh, hey, glad you liked, it,
come over for a burger, it'd be great if you could pick up a six of beer
and bring it..."
People don't think 'm like that, because I don't communicate well in
person. Thank goodness, ebcause fI have the unfortunate habit of being a
bit easy to take advantage of <LOL!>
>
>> DIstribution ought to be up to me.
>
> If it were, I might never get to discover, enjoy, and be inspired by
> your work. That kind of dynamic, it is argued, is what enriches
> creativity and culture more than keeping everything under lock & key.
But I never said anything about keeping things under lock and key.
>
> BTW, I seem to suddenly recall enjoying one or two of your
> compositions. Keep it up-- and online. :)
Well, if I can keep Windows from crashing long enough to get more work
done on my website, and then upload the thing... =:-o
I haven't composed in a long time, tho'. I go through phases. I guess
it'd also help if I empty out th emoving boxes that are on top of the
keyboard...<AHEM...> Actually, I'm fibbing, I can't play worth beans and
tend to "build" music. Most typically, I'l dream something, and then try
to reconstruct it if I remember it after waking up. Long process.
Second most typical, I jsut "hear" something in my head and then try to
build or reconstruct it. Also tedious. I need programs that just read
my mind directly! OTOH, that might end up being more like "Chiller
Theater" <LOL!>
>
>> But even that would be passable as long as I got attribution.
>> Copyright used to be about attribution (or, at least, that's what I'd
>> thought...) More an dmore, it's about money - as is pretty much
>> everything else =:-p
>>
>> As above, personally, I'd be most concerned about attribution, of
>> giving credit where credit is due.
>
> Google "Luxuriousity". ;D
>
Arrrrgh!!! Some people...
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap