In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

What do you mean by "use as you choose", Jim.

I mean that they provide the 'music' in a form like LPCM wave or Flac
with no DRM. They provide you with whatever sample rate and bitdepth
you choose. And you are then free to use that as you choose. So might
both have a 96k/24bit version to play on any computer-based system you
own, or generate DVDs to play on your own players, or CDs, or make
mp3s or aacs or whatever *you* use for your *own* listening. An end to
'now buy another version'.

Wouldn't it be nice? Unfortunately as far as the copyright owners are
concerned their copyrights are assets to be milked. If they can make you
pay again and again for the same work why should they allow you to "use
the material as you choose"?

I agree that is the attitude that many clearly have. The reality, though,
is that it simply causes many people to switch to pirating and regarding
*any* payment as something to be avoided. So the problem is in the *if*
statement you used "*if* they can *make* you..."

The reality is that with music, they often can't. Now I *don't* personally
make loads of copies of any music and make them available 'free' for
others. But it is clear that many people *do* this.

The 'media companies' have been trying to stop water that runs downhill
from reaching the bottom of the hill for decades. Maybe they will wake up
and realise their attitude is *not* working before they go bust. Maybe they
won't. If not, I doubt most will miss then *if* the music continues to be
available. And it *will* - either in pirate versions that pay no-one
anything, or by methods more like the ones I described that *do* pass some
money on to the artists, etc.

IMO the law of copyright is far too heavily weighted in the direction of
the copyright owners.

I agree. It is a symptom of something that also features in Iain's response
to what I said. The companies confuse the container with the contained. You
want to buy the *music*. They want to sell you the ability to hear it via
an LP, a CD, a DVD, a...

Decades ago they could easily acheive this. Now they can't. So far as I can
see the decline of their big incomes are down to their not facing this
simple reality.

I recently ordered a copy of an article from a 1941 issue of the JSMPTE
via the British Library. I was charged £10 for the copyright, over and
above the library fee, for a 7 page 70 year old article. It was
delivered by Secure Electronic Delivery, which means I could see it on
their server, and print it off, once, but not download it. I complained
about this to the Library, and mentioned that I had re-scanned the
print-out to give myself a "soft" copy. I received a stern rebuke from
the Library's copyright dept who pointed to the small print that said I
was not allowed to store the document in any electronic form. I'm afraid
my reaction was not to apologise, but to tell him that I thought the
restriction was utterly unreasonable. Frankly, what harm does it do to
the copyright owner how I choose to store a document?

Again, I agree. Note also that quite often the creators of works in places
like journals or magazines either were paid nothing, or got a lump sum. So
they lose nothing if others much later copy the work *because they can't
get a legitimate copy at anything like a reasonable cost in time or effort
or cash*.

Personally, I'd prefer a change to copyright law that essentially gave the
publisher the 'fish or cut bait' choice after, say, a decade or two from
initial creation.

i.e. Anyone could request the publisher make a copy available at a cost in
line with the price during its original on-sale in-stock period (with
inflation allowed). If they failed to do this within a year, *anyone* else
could make a copy and sell at that price. Then offer a small percentage to
the those who owned the initial rights - or the creators. Take it or leave
it.

One of the worst aspects of the current are the 'orphan works' which no-one
dare republish for fear someone who is currently untracable will pop up and
demand 'damages' later on. Another is big companies who keep shedloads of
'rights to works' just to keep control of what is available to compete with
what they *do* publish and as 'captial' to flog to one another. Does the
creators and would-be customers no good at all.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html