"Cynic" wrote in message
news:p1kft35um1otods3pias2g1u6p3a80cqoo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0000, "Norman Wells"
> wrote:
>
>>> Well, it's freely negotiated within the realms of reality. I'm sure
>>> that many artists would prefer it if they could charge the home user
>>> every time they listened to their track (just as they can charge radio
>>> stations every time it is played)
>
>>You have a very funny idea of how artists get their money. Do you really
>>think they negotiate separately with every one of the gazillion radio
>>stations there are throughout the world, monitor them all, and sit down to
>>deal with the gazillion cheques that roll in every month? Of course they
>>don't. It's all dealt with by the recording companies and the
>>broadcasters
>>entering into block agreements with Copyright Licensing Agencies,
>>Performing
>>Rights Societies etc.
>
> Details of logistics. The effect is as I describe. Obviously it
> needs to be organised in a managable way. The way it is presently
> managed involves quite a few "middle-men" who take a huge cut. Those
> middle-men could safely be eliminated.
But you seem to be using that as an argument to deny payment to the artists
and composers too. That I regard as thoroughly dishonest.
>
>>There were many who said that Napster could never be closed down. But it
>>was.
>
> And replaced immediately with something that did exactly the same
> thing in a slightly different way.
Yes, the 'slightly different way' being 'legally'. They agreed to pay
appropriate royalties.
> The words "farting against
> thunder" come to mind. IIRC there was a period of 3 whole days when
> it was a bit problematic to download music via P2P.
>
>>If the government is convinced of the case to clamp down similarly on P2P
>>in
>>order to protect artists and authors, it will find a way to stop it. And
>>that's the way I see it going. You and other users of P2P won't like it,
>>but it will be your own fault.
>
> Again, why do you believe that stopping P2P downloading (which I do
> not agree is practical) will prevent people downloading music for
> free?
How else? If it's done through an organisation, the organisation can be
targetted in just the same way as Napster.
>>> The answer is maybe for the same reason as you can gaze at a pleasant
>>> landscape without paying the owner of the land you're looking at for
>>> your pleasure. It would be infeasible to charge you.
>>
>>You can even look at a copyright work for free, so that's no answer at
>>all.
>>What you're not allowed to do is copy it during the period of copyright
>>protection. And that of course doesn't apply to a landscape.
>
> No, I am free to copy a landscape by taking photographs of it to my
> heart's content.
Landscapes do not qualify at all as works to which copyright can attach. Of
course you are therefore free to photograph a landscape.
>>So, given that a music track is someone else's work, you really don't have
>>an answer to the question why should _you_ acquire it and use it for free,
>>do you?
>
> Why should you pay for it? It's only a concept that was decided upon.
> Copying a work does not involve the artist in any additional time or
> money, so you are not taking anything from them. You don't have to
> pay an architect every time you make use of a building he has
> designed.
No-one suggested you should. Why should you?
>
>>> The fact is that it is not going to be realistically possible to
>>> prevent the consumer from aquiring the material for free, so instead
>>> of attempting to do the impossible, it's time to change the business
>>> model to something that does not require impossible things to be done.
>
>>You think that governments can't control P2P if they want to?
>
> I think that governments can't control the downloading of copyright
> material that people desire to make freely available.
I'm not sure who you mean here, but it certainly doesn't include the
creators of copyright works. And just because some oik thinks it a jolly
wheeze to infringe copyright by making it accessible to others for free
doesn't mean that it's acceptable. The government will find a way to
control it if they have the will.
> Not without
> taking such draconian action that it will get them kicked out of power
> PDQ.
There wouldn't be any voter backlash at all. Those who would be affected in
general don't vote, and those who do either won't have the faintest idea
what the argument is about, or will almost certainly side with the authors.
So, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Draconian action at all if that's
what's needed.
|