On 25/03/2011 13:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 24/03/2011 19:37, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message


So are you telling me that you don't think that composers, musicians,
film makers, writers etc. should be entitled to receive an income from
their work?


I think people could contribute to society if they can - and films etc
are worthwhile contributions in my, er, book.

A snag is that the way society and economy tends to work means that
producing something like a feature film can be expensive. (And in the UK
the government has just shut down the body that funded films like the Oscar
Winning "King's Speech" because they decided it was a waste of money!)

However, many people already choose to do work 'for free' or create works
others can use without any payment. I'm sure you can find musicians that do
this. You can also find webpage authors, computer programmers, am dram
enthusiasts, etc, etc. Linux is largly built on the work of thousands of
people who work on it and its applications, etc, and happily 'give away'
their work. Often without caring that most people don't know their name or
download and install without any thought of saying 'thanks'.

Others wish (or need) to earn a living out of performing, composing, etc. I
can't see anything wrong with them doing so *if* those wanting the result
think it worth the price. So far as I am concerned the primary choice to
ask for payment or not should be with the person doing the work. if they
want to charge and no-one wants to pay, then no-one should simply take the
work. Up to the performer or composer to decide what they'd then choose to
do if no-one will pay.

And 'rights' in 'copyrights' are plural. So those who create or publish can
specify *which* specific 'rights' they will sell, and the terms and
conditions. Just as the potential customer can reject that offer or accept
it. Just as a publisher has to agree specific terms with an author or
performer and also with people buying copies from the publisher.

So we already have a 'mixed economy' in these terms.

I suspect that many other would *like* to give their work for no charge.
But are hampered by details like the shopkeepers expecting them to pay for
their food, and the bank to have the mortgage paid, etc.

I'd love to see many detailed aspects of copyright law changed. But my
concerns are about works that are 'orphaned' or were produced decades ago
and the original artists/publishers have *already* had many years to
recover payment.


Yes, I think that's a succinct and considered view. Just not mine. I
don't think 'talent', 'productivity', whatever, should be sold. Once you
put monetary value on that type of thing reasoning becomes perversely
skewed. Now, 'in the real world', people need to eat. But this
discussion isn't really about people scraping a living, is it? It's
/more/ to do with supporting corporations and wealthy individuals, and
helping them maintain their little lot?

Rob