Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 25/03/2011 09:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote


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

Would films exist without copyright? Since in a world without
copyright it would be almost impossible to recover the costs of making
a film, let alone make a profit, I very much doubt it. Personally I'd
rather live in a world with films, recorded music, books etc. even if
I have to pay for them, than one where those things didn't exist
because nobody could afford to produce them.


Of course they would - and even given the current state of play, I'd
suggest we'd have better films. Do you think people like Mike Leigh care
about copyright?

It seems likely that many authors and performers have little interest in
'copyright' per se. The question, though, becomes how they eat and live and
have the time and effort to devote to their 'creative' work.

For a film, you need more than "Mike Leigh". You need a number of other
people to work on the film if it is going to be done on a basis much beyond
one man and his home videocamera.

Many of us are happy to do some work 'free' because we wish to do so. But
those who do this still need to eat, have somewhere to live, and the tools
for the work they do. This can be a part-time 'hobby' and done on an
amateur basis - but only if support or income is present from other means.

In the case of something like a feature film you'd probably need a lot of
money for all the equipment, travel expenses, etc. Again unless your film
was based on what was possible in your own backyard.

In the absense of any copyright at all, how would expect this to be
function? I can see various possibilities that would do in various cases.
But I can't see why others should not be able to choose a 'copyright'
method if that suits them and their audience.

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! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 09:18, Rob wrote:

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the recording
industry, a single penny.
:
copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else

No contradiction there, of course.

--
Eiron.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om, 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.


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?

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'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.

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.

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! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 09:47, Eiron wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:18, Rob wrote:

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the
recording industry, a single penny.
:
copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else

No contradiction there, of course.


You'd be quite right there, of course :-)

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:47, Eiron wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:18, Rob wrote:

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the
recording industry, a single penny.
:
copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else

No contradiction there, of course.


You'd be quite right there, of course :-)

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. :-)

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 25/03/2011 09:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote


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

Would films exist without copyright? Since in a world without copyright
it
would be almost impossible to recover the costs of making a film, let
alone
make a profit, I very much doubt it. Personally I'd rather live in a
world
with films, recorded music, books etc. even if I have to pay for them,
than
one where those things didn't exist because nobody could afford to
produce
them.


Of course they would - and even given the current state of play, I'd
suggest we'd have better films. Do you think people like Mike Leigh care
about copyright? Well, I don't know, obviously. I would agree with you on
one point: it's unlikely we'd have as many films if it were not for
copyright.

Film making is an expensive business, and the first thing the would-be
producer of any film, however modest or "arthouse", needs to do is secure
the finance. The film industry has traditionally used a form of
"pay-per-view" as the means by which it finances it's production, more
recently it has taken to selling copies retail. Both of those methods of
generating a financial return depend on copyright.

But there are other business models which we can see from TV. We have the
tax-funded approach, as seen with the BBC, or there is commercial
sponsorship as with commercial TV. But both of those have their own
disadvantages, in particular both are more centrally controlled than the
film industry is, thus leading to less consumer choice..

And I think people could, as part of the package, have use of and access
to things that enable them to lead a full and fulfilled, happy life.
Like
vinyl and valve phono amps, that type of thing :-)

Not quite sure what that has to do with the subject, apart from the point
that without copyright recordings your valve amps would have rather less
to
do ;-)


Subject of copyright? It's absolutely central, in the sense people would
want to 'steal' in the first place. But no matter.

My comment referred to your gratuitous reference to "vinyl and valve phono
amps". What has the technology used got to do with the issue?

I'm not telling you anything - it's just my opinion,

Of course, all statements made in this group, unless claimed as "facts"
(and
often even when they are!), are opinions; that's the nature of forums
like
this.


Yes, agreed - you started with 'are you telling me . . .' - just wanted to
be clear.

Well I wanted to be clear, which is why I asked if my reading of your
comment was the correct one.

and I have twigged that most people disagree with my opinion. Nobody has
given me a persuasive alternative - yet.

Persuasive alternative to what?


The current system we have - 'end of history'.

You haven't given a persuasive alternative either. Our present world has
grown up with copyright and it's hard to imagine what it would look like
without it.

It's those who say, as a matter of verifiable fact, that I'm wrong that
I
might take issue with.

Wrong about what? You stated your opinion and it's not for me to say that
it's not your opinion is it?

Plenty of people say, as a point of apparent unequivocal fact, that
copyright is good, and I am wrong in my opinion.

Do they? We all have opinions on all sorts of subjects and what is the point
of having an opinion if you don't believe it to be true? In the case of
copyright we can only speculate on what the world would be like without it,
so obviously there cannot be "unequivocal fact".

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.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

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

Since the dawn of history people have sold their skills and labour for money
(or equivalent). This applies whether your skills are as a farmer, a
warrior, a bureaucrat, a craftsman, a performer or indeed a writer, composer
or film-maker. Do you think that none of these skills or talents should be
"sold", or are you making a distinction between those who produce physical
products and those who produce "intellectual property"?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote

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

Since the dawn of history people have sold their skills and labour for
money (or equivalent). This applies whether your skills are as a farmer,
a warrior, a bureaucrat, a craftsman, a performer or indeed a writer,
composer or film-maker. Do you think that none of these skills or
talents should be "sold", or are you making a distinction between those
who produce physical products and those who produce "intellectual
property"?

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.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the recording
industry, a single penny. In fact, overall, they've done pretty well out
of me.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

I don't agree. I can only think of Radiohead as a counter to your
reasoning, because I don't know enough about how making music works.

Radiohead is an interesting case. AIUI it Radiohead were a band who, having
made a lot of money from sales of previous releases, decided to offer one on
a "pay what you think it worth" basis. From my memory of news reports at the
time some people paid the recommended price (i.e.. what it would have
normally cost), others paid less than that, whilst a large number paid
nothing. I'm not sure how much less the group got than they might have
expected from a normal release; the publicity given to the case probably
meant that some of those who paid nothing downloaded the album for free just
because they could, and would not have done so at all if they'd had to pay.
Personally I don't think that a rational way to sell anything, I notice that
my local supermarket doesn't offer it's products on a "pay what you think
they are worth" basis. As far as I am aware neither Radiohead nor any other
band has repeated that gimmick since. And how people responded to that case
does not necessarily indicate how they would act if the "pay what you think
it worth" model was the norm. My guess, FWIW, is that it would soon move
into a situation where hardly anybody ever paid for downloads.


afraid your argument won't change my behaviour. For example:

I went to watch some live music on Saturday. Bit left field for me (jazz)
but thoroughly enjoyed the experience, bought a CD at the venue, copied
the CD, gave the CD away to someone else I thought might enjoy the music.
I just don't see who gets hurt in that type of process. Perhaps you're
saying I should have asked for money, and then tracked down the performer
and passed on whatever fee I'd managed to negotiate? And relied on the
performer to ensure everything went to the people it should go to? Or lent
the CD, and made clear that it must be returned after a period (3 weeks?).
Or I should simply have put the CD away in the cellar, and carried it with
me for the rest of my time, or until I securely deleted the stored copy?


As current law applies clearly the last option is the legally correct
approach. As for "who gets hurt" that would depend on whether you cost the
band a sale. Had you, rather than giving your copy to your friend,
recommended he went out and bought his own (and he had done so) the band
would have gained a sale, so you potentially cost them one by your action.
The loss of one sale may not be the end of the world, but if everbody who
buys a CD costs the band one further sale by acting as you did then their
income from that CD has been cut by 50%.

Suppose, if copyright did not exist, you went to the concert with your
laptop and a pile of blank CD-Rs. Then you bought one CD, ran off a load of
copies on your laptop, and offered the audience the chance to buy a copy
from you, rather than an 'official' copy. Without copyright that would be
legal, but do you think it ethical?


David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote


I went to watch some live music on Saturday. Bit left field for me (jazz)
but thoroughly enjoyed the experience, bought a CD at the venue, copied
the CD, gave the CD away to someone else I thought might enjoy the music.
I just don't see who gets hurt in that type of process. Perhaps you're
saying I should have asked for money, and then tracked down the performer
and passed on whatever fee I'd managed to negotiate? And relied on the
performer to ensure everything went to the people it should go to? Or lent
the CD, and made clear that it must be returned after a period (3 weeks?).
Or I should simply have put the CD away in the cellar, and carried it with
me for the rest of my time, or until I securely deleted the stored copy?

Can you give me a practical steer here? I don't know quite what you're
saying.


I think one thing that comes out of all this is that if you do rip a CD and
give the original away (to anybody or any organisation) you had better not
mention it here - as it seems to me it might be 'unsafe' so to do! ;-)

Makes the question 'Have you finished with that newspaper?' look like
someone intends to diminish Mr Murdock's personal fortune by his share of
the price of that paper, does it not? How many times could that paper be
passed along for free before it was considered a problem? How many times
could that paper be passed along for say 'half price' before it was
considered a problem?