Replies

Both !

If you are a performer yourself, you have some idea of what musicians, etc. go through before their efforts begin to return any money. ( The old adage : " Don't quit your day job ! " is painfully true to MOST . )

I'm not a musician or entertainer myself. If I can hit 4 or 5 chords on a guitar, or pick out the bones of a melody on a mandolin, etc., I'm having a really good day; but fooling around on an instrument or two has given me an appreciation for the genuine- trying-like- hell- to- make- it performers out there : most of whom , if they EVER make an album, will have to finance and market it themselves.

What gives me - or anyone else - the right to rip them off because it's technologically feasible ?

If I have THAT right, then I also have the right to walk up to any point of purchase display, and help myself to any tapes or CD's that catch my eye..if no one is watching : my rationalization being " the store charges too much ".

Is that the new face of morality ?

I sympathize with musicians, programmers, writers, etc. However, the question becomes do they own their creations once they chose to release them to the public? After all, we're not talking about a physical thing here, we're talking about an idea, a thought, a collection of magnetic pulses, or an arrangment of musical tones or words. (Which is not to say these aren't real or valuable)

Since the concept of a copyright exists, it seems to imply pretty strongly that these creations aren't owned at all. The creator is only given the "right" to control "copies" for a limited period of time. Artist can keep their creations to themselves and not run the risk of their creations being copied by others - it is a choice they make to release them.

I guess the question becomes then, if the public owns any released works (as the law as originally written seems to imply) and it temporarily cedes control over to the copyright holder, then if, in the public's view, the copyright has been abused, does the public have the right to ignore the owner's copyright and reclaim their ownership?

A reason I assert, based on my understanding, that creators of these works don't own them, is that the work itself doesn't exist, only a copy, in some form, of that work. All of these originate in the mind of their creator or discoverer. That person has a choice - they can keep it to themself, or they can elect to transmit that work to the minds of others - and that's what we're really talking about here - a book that no one reads, a record that no one listens to, or a computer program that is never executed on a machine are worthless. Their value only is realized when someone takes them into their own mind (or runs them on the "mind" of a computer). Once I've read the book, listened to the music, or understood the idea as a consumer, that book, music or idea is mine. Its in my brain and I can recall it, reconsider it, replay it as often as I want. I can even communicate that work to others (although possibly not as accurately as the original). So, what we're really talking about, is control over the means of disseminating a work or idea for profit because no one seems to be arguing that I can't talk to another person about a book I read, even if I'm able to memorize it and repeat it verbatim.

Lets take a hypothetical here. Say I invent a machine that can extract thoughts or memories from one person and insert them into another person's brain - no more far-fetched than the concept of an MP3 would have been 50 years ago. I listen to a performance of a piece of music. Since I have a great memory, I'm able to communicate that performance exactly to another person via this invention (just like I could have told them about it in lesser detail). If the artist "owns" the performance, than this would be illegal. But doesn't talking about a performance result in the same thing, albeit with less detail? If an artist owns a performance, then shouldn't it also be (at least partially) illegal to talk about a performance if you communicate a certain level of detail? If I had a good enough memory, I could relate an entire novel to another person, couldn't I? No one seems to be suggesting this is illegal.

Sorry for the length. I'm just pointing out that this isn't quite as "cut and dried" as stealing a car, for instance.

If you are a performer yourself, you have some idea of what musicians, etc. go through before their efforts begin to return any money. ( The old adage : " Don't quit your day job ! " is painfully true to MOST . )

Read #24 by Greg West, who IS a musician. The current system mainly enriches the corporate honchos at the music companies, plus a handful of superstar musicians. A system where 2nd-tier artists could make a moderate living by either selling their music online for a modest download fee, or for free (in order to promote their live tours and promo items) would lead to MORE music being written and available. The internet is a very big world. At ten-to-twenty-five cents per song-download, it would be easier to just go to the home site of your favorite artist to download his latest stuff than to hunt on the web, yet an artist with a few thousand fans could make a decent living thru downloads and live performances