On 24/03/2011 19:37, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/03/2011 18:55, David Looser wrote:
wrote


Yes, that's fine, I just don't happen to agree with the law.

So what do you think copyright law should be like?


I don't agree with copyright law - I don't think that people should own
anything at all.


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. 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 :-)

I'm not telling you anything - it's just my opinion, and I have twigged
that most people disagree with my opinion. Nobody has given me a
persuasive alternative - yet. It's those who say, as a matter of
verifiable fact, that I'm wrong that I might take issue with.

Rob

"Rob" 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.

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 ;-)

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.

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

Persuasive alternative to what?

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?

David.

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.


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.

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.

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'.

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.

Rob

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

"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.

On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
b.com...
On 25/03/2011 09:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote


snipped not necessarily disagree but not the point I'm trying to make


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.


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.

Rob

"Rob" wrote

I've made the point that people shouldn't own things.

When you say "things" do you mean just intellectual property, or all
property?

David.

"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....

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

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