On 27/03/2011 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 25/03/2011 13:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, [big snip]


Yes, I think that's a succinct and considered view. Just not mine. I
don't think 'talent', 'productivity', whatever, should be sold.

I also like the 'free' and 'open' ways of doing things for many purposes.
But I also think it is a matter for the individual author or performer if
they want to only provide their work in return for an income. Up to them to
state their terms, and for others to decide if they want the result enough
to agree, or go without.


Yes well. It all becomes utterly circular at this point. Don't people
have to engage with the industry to produce and distribute music (etc)
in the first place. I like the idea of internet, unfettered,
distribution for example, but it's too disorganised for people like me -
I don't have the time or energy . . .

Once you put monetary value on that type of thing reasoning becomes
perversely skewed.

I don't agree that with a blanket assertion that it is always "perversely
skewed". Some people write or perform as a means to make a living. If they
are good enough for others to pay, why should they not do so?


No, absolutely, I'd have thought many performers etc do what they do
without a thought for money, or perhaps only a distant expectation that
they'll get some return. It's people elsewhere and their shareholders
that I'm concerned about.

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?

That for me is a key point. It is one thing to have in place a legal
framework that allows the creator or performer to earn a living from their
work. It is something else for businesses to then take control of this for
their own ends.

To me it all has to be judged on the basis of what it serves, and who
benefits in each case. That means I'd wish to see some detailed alterations
to copyright law where I think at present it harms either the
creator/artist and/or the people who would like to use the results. But I
don't expect or wish to see it entirely banished.

Consider Linux. I like this partly because of how it works. But also I like
the free and open approach. I'd love to see more computer users adopt this.
But I don't want to ban Microsoft or Apple or change the law so that anyone
could copy and use their softwareware for free. I'm happy for the two
approaches to compete. My only concern is that people have a fair view of
what is on offer so they can decide on a well-informed basis, and either
contribute/pay and use on the basis they decide suits them best.


I see your point, but don't agree. People use Microsoft because it's
ubiquitous, not because it's especially good or good value. I think
copyright has served to reinforce that position. And it's not a case of
'fair view' - students frequently invest obscene amounts of money (they
don't appear to have) on 'MS computers' because they feel they have to.

I'm not a fan of Windows or Microsoft. But I don't feel it is my job to
tell others *they* shouldn't like it. Provided they are well informed and
aren't making a choice based on misinformation or ignorance, up to them to
choose for themself.

Yes, and i'm not especially proud of this sentiment, but it really isn't
that simple.

In terms of things like music or film or books the choices are similar. The
point of copyright law should be to set a fair framework people can use as
suits them as people. The difficulty is that the framework we have at
present seems to me to be based on an older and different world, then
morphed by pressure from big companies into what suits *them*. So there are
many detailed changed I'd like to see. But not the removal entirely of all
copyrights.


If I had to pick an expedient transitional arrangement it might be a
lump sum, or a a fixed term contract. But a practically endless stream
of money for something they had the opportunity to be a part of, that
happens to be popular, nope.

Rob