Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 12:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:


I look forwards to those who have acted as you describe then telling
the artists and publishers to discover what reactions they get. When
they do, please let us know the outcome. :-)


Well, you don't know how I've acted. If I have copied CDs and then kept
the copies and given them away, you'd need to know the CD's origin, who
I gave them to, and what the recipient then did as a result.

The BPI probably would not need that info if you refused to give it. They
and the companies could act in concert I suspect. And refusing to give the
info might not cause the court to look kindly on your behaviour.

But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people who
do the work, and see what they think.

Go ahead.

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

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...
On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser


My view, FWIW, is that without copyright few people, however much they
might
want to, could afford to produce the sort of "works" that copyright
currently protects. In the particular case of film making the sheer cost
of
the process would, IMO, mean the end of the film industry as we know it.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat' if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


*Most misused phrase in the English language, thanks to the Yanks....

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:43:52 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser


My view, FWIW, is that without copyright few people, however much they
might
want to, could afford to produce the sort of "works" that copyright
currently protects. In the particular case of film making the sheer cost
of
the process would, IMO, mean the end of the film industry as we know it.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat' if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


Big problem though. The artists must be paid - should it be a lump sum
agreed in advance with the record company? What if the record goes
mega? Should the company reap all the resulting rewards? And what
happens to the independent artist with no Sony deal? How does he get
paid, and by whom? No, I can't see a viable alternative to the current
system by which an artist is paid a small amount whenever someone new
is added to his chain of listeners - ie the license fee.

If the new listener is a result of an old listener being lost - ie a
CD given away, then fair enough, no extra fee. But if the original
listener still has the music, the new one is properly obliged to pay
his share.


*Most misused phrase in the English language, thanks to the Yanks....


Clive Sinclair more like.

d

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com
On 25/03/2011 12:20, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com

I don't see anything
wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy.

The moral issue has been described quite clearly - by
keeping the MP3 file you are behaving as if you hold a
license that you have already sold or given away.

That's your interpretation of my behaviour.

There's no interpretation here, unless you have other relevant fact to
present.

It's not incorrect, just far from complete.

What else needs to be said?

My morality is in part
informed by the extent to which I do harm/good, not legal
scripture.

I consider the letter of the law to be a minimal standard that I hope to
vastly exceed in my day-to-day life, but that's just my own personal choice.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:43:52 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Rob" wrote


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat'
if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems
we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free
society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


Big problem though. The artists must be paid - should it be a lump sum
agreed in advance with the record company? What if the record goes
mega? Should the company reap all the resulting rewards? And what
happens to the independent artist with no Sony deal? How does he get
paid, and by whom? No, I can't see a viable alternative to the current
system by which an artist is paid a small amount whenever someone new
is added to his chain of listeners - ie the license fee.


Impossible to assail the *rectitude* of what you say but it doesn't get us
an inch nearer to The Wrath Of Khan, does it? If instead a musician was paid
a one-off lump sum for his music (like Mozart and his contemporaries) and he
was any good, the price he'd get for his work would go up as time went on
and the music production company would be the ones to risk failure or reap
large rewards.

One benefit I can see straight away of a 'lump sum' system is it would
reward talent on a strictly pro-rata basis, instead of making 'flash in the
pan' spotty kids millionaires for well-marketed crap before they are old
enough not to be permanently damaged by it! (The money that is!)

It's the difference between a composer and a painter, isn't it?

Referring to another 'Star Thingy', I understand the jolly green giant in
Star Wars got a (then) handsome lump sum of about 20K for his role in Star
Wars while the considerably better off Alec Guiness was able to waive a lump
sum and took a punt on a percentage which netted him millions and probably
still is!


If the new listener is a result of an old listener being lost - ie a
CD given away, then fair enough, no extra fee. But if the original
listener still has the music, the new one is properly obliged to pay
his share.


If the musician was paid 'lump sum' that would be the music production
company's problem - what makes me laugh is that, in one instance, the same
company who owns and sells the music will sell you the device you need to
rip it off!

(That's a form of 'damage limitation' called 'having it both ways'!! :-)

*Most misused phrase in the English language, thanks to the Yanks....


Clive Sinclair more like.


Him too....

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:45:00 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:43:52 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Rob" wrote


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat'
if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems
we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free
society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


Big problem though. The artists must be paid - should it be a lump sum
agreed in advance with the record company? What if the record goes
mega? Should the company reap all the resulting rewards? And what
happens to the independent artist with no Sony deal? How does he get
paid, and by whom? No, I can't see a viable alternative to the current
system by which an artist is paid a small amount whenever someone new
is added to his chain of listeners - ie the license fee.


Impossible to assail the *rectitude* of what you say but it doesn't get us
an inch nearer to The Wrath Of Khan, does it? If instead a musician was paid
a one-off lump sum for his music (like Mozart and his contemporaries) and he
was any good, the price he'd get for his work would go up as time went on
and the music production company would be the ones to risk failure or reap
large rewards.

Still doesn't answer the question who is going to pay him this lump
sum?

One benefit I can see straight away of a 'lump sum' system is it would
reward talent on a strictly pro-rata basis, instead of making 'flash in the
pan' spotty kids millionaires for well-marketed crap before they are old
enough not to be permanently damaged by it! (The money that is!)


Big record companies signing new acts work the percentages. They
factor in what proportion of new acts are likely to make them money in
agreeing rates. For the individual artists life isn't like that. His
career stands or falls. His risk is consequently much greater than
that of the record company, so it is justifiable that his personal
reward should be likewise higher.

It's the difference between a composer and a painter, isn't it?

Referring to another 'Star Thingy', I understand the jolly green giant in
Star Wars got a (then) handsome lump sum of about 20K for his role in Star
Wars while the considerably better off Alec Guiness was able to waive a lump
sum and took a punt on a percentage which netted him millions and probably
still is!


Yup. Alec Guinness PLC was a large concern, well able to play the
odds.

d

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 21:01, David Looser wrote:
wrote

In the example you give, I might expect a 'decent return'. If it happened
to be a best seller, I'd give up the day job, take a few year's salary
equivalent, and give the rest away.

There probably would not be any "rest". The likes of J.K.Rowling are few and
far between, most "best sellers" do not make more than a few year's salary
equivalent.

Well Dave P hypothesised my writing a best seller. Very nice of him, but
agreed, not likely. At my age :-)

I was sorry, BTW, that you didn't answer my question as to whether you felt
that it was always wrong to put a monetary value on talent, or if that only
applied to certain sorts of talent.


Well, this is difficult to answer*. Leaving aside the point about
whether talent is 'nature/nurture', I would say yes, it is wrong. Why:
there's never a right figure, distribution of wealth goes odd (really,
should Susan Boyle, bless etc, have netted £5m to date, plus whatever
she gets from blessed copyright?), and crucially I don't think doing
things for monetary gain is a good way of going about life. There's a
nice bit about EF Schumacher doing the rounds at the moment, and I would
go along with his 'Small is Beautiful' notions; apparently naive but,
and bearing in mind when it was written, remarkably prophetic.

Rob

* no offence meant with the delay - I'm sure I leave a lot of threads
hanging, just don't have/make time to answer.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 28/03/2011 08:52, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Wonder what Rob would think if he wrote a book and sent the manuscript
to a publisher, and it was rejected, and returned.

Then found it was later published and became a best seller with
nothing being paid to him.


Ah well yes, I'd concede I am a hypocrite. Doesn't stop me thinking one
thing and doing something else.

I can't resist adding into this discussion an 'interesting case' I've just
encountered.

I went into a local bookshop and found a newly published book by... John
Wyndham. Who died about 40 years ago!

He wrote it at the same time as he wrote "The Day of the Triffids", but it
wasn't published whilst he was alive. Now it has appeared. It was initially
published by Liverpool Uni, and now by Penguin Books. I presume at present
the copyright is between the Uni and his 'estate'. This raises the
question, should they not be paid for the work in bringing this to
publication?

Hard cases make bad law. :-)


And another thing - there's no way the estate should benefit from his
work, surely?! Proceeds should go to the state, such as it is.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 28/03/2011 12:43, Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...
On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser


My view, FWIW, is that without copyright few people, however much
they might
want to, could afford to produce the sort of "works" that copyright
currently protects. In the particular case of film making the sheer
cost of
the process would, IMO, mean the end of the film industry as we know it.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise
of the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't
eat' if there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant)
minority. In much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a
result of bankers' excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't
make it right. Also, distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair -
this notion that the sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is
fanciful. And perhaps 'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off
the back of copyright revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the
problems we have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off
for free but,

Yes, I have a problem with that. But *I* think I do more or less the
right thing overall.

at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of
society should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when
most of us are not?

Yes. Its the equivalent of job for life if you hit lucky.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 28/03/2011 13:21, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
b.com
On 25/03/2011 12:20, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com

I don't see anything
wrong, morally, in keeping an mp3 copy.

The moral issue has been described quite clearly - by
keeping the MP3 file you are behaving as if you hold a
license that you have already sold or given away.

That's your interpretation of my behaviour.

There's no interpretation here, unless you have other relevant fact to
present.


Well, as I suggested elsewhere - do you know the origin of the CD I
copied, who I gave it to, why, and what they did with it? If we're
talking morals equal 'right and wrong' there's no line to be drawn.
Unless you hold the law to be a moral benchmark - which it seems you do.

It's not incorrect, just far from complete.

What else needs to be said?


There is no 'the' moral issue. Morality is a vast concern for most
people, and it won't involve law.

My morality is in part
informed by the extent to which I do harm/good, not legal
scripture.

I consider the letter of the law to be a minimal standard that I hope to
vastly exceed in my day-to-day life, but that's just my own personal choice.


Ah. That's the crucial thing. I think a lot of law is variously
obstructive, discriminatory, daft, counter-productive, and ineffective.
It's also determined by a selection of barely accountable politicians
(etc). It's certainly not the basis of my admittedly odd morality.

Rob