Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Creative Commons? Show Me the Money

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:48:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

There's an article in today's Washington Post about Creative Commons,
an organization that's offering an alternative to copyright for
artists who want to retain some rights to their work, but offer it up
for grabs on the Internet (as an example). The organization has a web
site (of course) http://www.creativecommons.org (of course). Link to
the Post article is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35297-20...

It all looks wonderful, but where's the money? Once a work is given
away, you have to make your money on something else. I guess you give
away one song and hope people will buy the CD. I suspect most of them
will wait for the next free release.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 6:44:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> There's an article in today's Washington Post about Creative Commons,
> an organization that's offering an alternative to copyright for
> artists who want to retain some rights to their work, but offer it up
> for grabs on the Internet (as an example). The organization has a web
> site (of course) http://www.creativecommons.org (of course). Link to
> the Post article is
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35297-20...

> It all looks wonderful, but where's the money? Once a work is given
> away, you have to make your money on something else. I guess you give
> away one song and hope people will buy the CD. I suspect most of them
> will wait for the next free release.

I was just perusing some photos of Burning Man and noted the statement
that some rights were reserved under the Creative Commons copyright,
after noting the copyright insignia "cc". The site had no commercial
intent.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:43:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:

> I was just perusing some photos of Burning Man...
> ha

Hank- are you a burner?


rob
Related resources
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:56:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

En/na Mike Rivers ha escrit:

> It all looks wonderful, but where's the money?

the money is always in the shows.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:56:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <39qdgdF64mcicU1@individual.net> me@privacy.net writes:

> > It all looks wonderful, but where's the money?

> the money is always in the shows.

This was the point when I started the "Doonesbury" thread a few weeks
ago. But you have to do shows. And the bigger the shows, the more
money it takes to put them on. You can play a coffee house with your
acoustic guitar, it'll cost you gas money and maybe a meal, and you
might come home with $100 on a good night, maybe netting $90. But when
you play Madison Square Garden, you can't really do that. Even James
Taylor (and his acoustic guitar) has more expenses than gas money and
a meal.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:56:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

alex bazan <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>En/na Mike Rivers ha escrit:
>
>> It all looks wonderful, but where's the money?
>
>the money is always in the shows.

Like the man asks... where's the money?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:56:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Like the man asks... where's the money?

Indeed. It seems that it's the 'money' guys who keep telling the
artist that part of the artist's compensation is the 'satisfaction' of
having his art out there being appreciated by all those people.
Satisfaction and appreciation are good, but no substitute for paying
the bills! Why do people in the arts always have to give up something
for their art - usually any financial reward?

I read something a while back (don't remember where) that put the
financial rewards of art in some perspective. Something like 1% of
artists (can't recall which artistic fields were covered, but music was
included) have major financial success; another 10% make a
'comfortable' living from their art and the rest don't make a living
wage from their efforts.

The people pushing the giveaway of copyright protections sound
hopelessly naive. More than likely part of this current generation
that feels entitled to everything that they want including copyright
protected music that they unabashedly steal over the internet because
'music should be free'. Make no mistake, someone WILL profit from
those rights and it should be the artist above all.

Young and dumb may be some sort of an excuse, but for those of us who
know how tough it can be to eke out a living there can be no doubt that
giving away your means of making a living does not translate well into
financial reward.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:56:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110989298.454167.95060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"will" <wpmusic@sio.midco.net> wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Like the man asks... where's the money?
>
> Indeed. It seems that it's the 'money' guys who keep telling the
> artist that part of the artist's compensation is the 'satisfaction' of
> having his art out there being appreciated by all those people.
> Satisfaction and appreciation are good, but no substitute for paying
> the bills! Why do people in the arts always have to give up something
> for their art - usually any financial reward?
>
> I read something a while back (don't remember where) that put the
> financial rewards of art in some perspective. Something like 1% of
> artists (can't recall which artistic fields were covered, but music was
> included) have major financial success; another 10% make a
> 'comfortable' living from their art and the rest don't make a living
> wage from their efforts.
>
> The people pushing the giveaway of copyright protections sound
> hopelessly naive. More than likely part of this current generation
> that feels entitled to everything that they want including copyright
> protected music that they unabashedly steal over the internet because
> 'music should be free'. Make no mistake, someone WILL profit from
> those rights and it should be the artist above all.
>
> Young and dumb may be some sort of an excuse, but for those of us who
> know how tough it can be to eke out a living there can be no doubt that
> giving away your means of making a living does not translate well into
> financial reward.
>

Frankly, the arts are not viable professions, as you indicate above. What other
pursuit makes a comfortable living for just 11% of participants? We're looking
at this much like we are looking at politics: black and white. The solution is
more a shade of gray. There need to be guarantees for the creators of
intellectual property, but the corporate control of copyrights is neither in the
best interest of artists nor of the consumer.

The balance lies somewhere between the two extremes. Micropayments for
downloads is one possible avenue for creating income streams. Or like BMI and
ASCAP, flawed as they might be, we could survey downloads and assign royalty
payments from money collected from ISPs for the privilege of using the
intellectual properties of others to benefit ISP users. There are possible
solutions that need to be explored.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:10:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

[Creative Commons]

> It all looks wonderful, but where's the money?

Why would you want money if making music is only a hobby?

Johann
--
Wenn man es ganz genau nimmt, hast du diesen Satz nicht ins Usenet
gepostet, sondern du hast mal wieder mit dir selbst geredet. Was du ja
prompt immer wieder bewiesen hast.
(*Tönnes in <3E92F315.7010209@uni.de>)
March 16, 2005 3:16:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> It all looks wonderful, but where's the money?

I know at least one band who has their works available as creative
commons share-alike, and yet I and some of my friends have purchased
their albums because we like them. So there's *some* of the money :) 

Ken
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:44:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

R Tyck wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:

> > I was just perusing some photos of Burning Man...

> Hank- are you a burner?

Nope, because I always seem to have gigs during that time, but I have
several friends who help burn. And One of the photos of a burner looks a
lot like somebody I know in TX. Gonna check that.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:05:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110989298.454167.95060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wpmusic@sio.midco.net writes:

> I read something a while back (don't remember where) that put the
> financial rewards of art in some perspective. Something like 1% of
> artists (can't recall which artistic fields were covered, but music was
> included) have major financial success; another 10% make a
> 'comfortable' living from their art and the rest don't make a living
> wage from their efforts.

That sounds like a reasonable breakdown. I must know about 100
musicians, about 10 of which own a house, have a family, eat pretty
well, have health insurance, and occaisonally take a vacaiton. I have
known one or two who have had major financial success, but that was
long ago. I think he invested well and is still comfortable.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 8:34:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

En/na Scott Dorsey ha escrit:
> alex bazan <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>En/na Mike Rivers ha escrit:
>>
>>
>>>It all looks wonderful, but where's the money?
>>
>>the money is always in the shows.
>
>
> Like the man asks... where's the money?
> --scott

wheres the money???

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_1/kretschmer/
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 8:34:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:34:29 +0100, alex bazan <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>En/na Scott Dorsey ha escrit:
>> alex bazan <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>En/na Mike Rivers ha escrit:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It all looks wonderful, but where's the money?
>>>
>>>the money is always in the shows.
>>
>>
>> Like the man asks... where's the money?
>> --scott
>
>wheres the money???
>
>http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_1/kretschmer/

Thaks for the excellent link, that's a great overview of the issues
involved.

Al
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:27:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <jay-22042D.09105016032005@news.stanford.edu> jay@ccrma.stanford.edu writes:

> Frankly, the arts are not viable professions, as you indicate above.

> There need to be guarantees for the creators of
> intellectual property, but the corporate control of copyrights is neither in
> the best interest of artists nor of the consumer.

Guarantee of what? A copyright is a means to protect intellectual
property, but it's not a guarantee to make a living from its creation.
To do that, you need do more than create, you need to sell. The
copyright gives you some protection when you sell (or license) it.

To sell, there needs to be a buyer or buyers. And to attract buyers
you need to market your product. If you're a perforer, play gigs. If
you're a songwriter, knock on the doors of established publishers.
They're the ones who get the famous artists to record your song, not
you.

> Micropayments for
> downloads is one possible avenue for creating income streams.

This is a great method for someone with no market presence. It costs
practically nothing, and if a little (or a lot) of money comes in,
that's better than sitting on your butt waiting to be discovered.
It's also good supplemental income for an established artist - a way
to keep in touch with your fans on a more (seemingly) personal level.
Give them a free sample for their loyalty and offer a couple more that
they can buy while you have their interest.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:28:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1111008146k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

> In article <jay-22042D.09105016032005@news.stanford.edu>
> jay@ccrma.stanford.edu writes:
>
> > Frankly, the arts are not viable professions, as you indicate above.
>
> > There need to be guarantees for the creators of
> > intellectual property, but the corporate control of copyrights is neither
> > in
> > the best interest of artists nor of the consumer.
>
> Guarantee of what? A copyright is a means to protect intellectual
> property, but it's not a guarantee to make a living from its creation.
> To do that, you need do more than create, you need to sell. The
> copyright gives you some protection when you sell (or license) it.
>

Simply a guarantee that others cannot appropriate the content for their own use.
There is no guarantee that it is desirable to a buyer. I don't favor completely
doing away with the current idea of copyright. I don't think it should be
extended to the heirs of the creator, however.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:41:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:jay-2CB70D.07284717032005@news.stanford.edu...
> In article <znr1111008146k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>I don't favor completely
> doing away with the current idea of copyright. I don't think it should be
> extended to the heirs of the creator, however.

Ever? At all? Under any circumstances? So if you write a song that some band
thinks might be a hit & they want to cover it & not have to pay any
royalties, they can simply have a hit put on you so your song will become
public domain & then make the same amount of money off it as if they wrote
it themselves?

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:15:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Fsp_d.21959$yp.12255@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:

> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:jay-2CB70D.07284717032005@news.stanford.edu...
> > In article <znr1111008146k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> >I don't favor completely
> > doing away with the current idea of copyright. I don't think it should be
> > extended to the heirs of the creator, however.
>
> Ever? At all? Under any circumstances? So if you write a song that some band
> thinks might be a hit & they want to cover it & not have to pay any
> royalties, they can simply have a hit put on you so your song will become
> public domain & then make the same amount of money off it as if they wrote
> it themselves?
>
> Neil Henderson
>
>

How many times do you think your scenario would be played out [excluding
gangster rap...] If you murder someone you aren't like to manage the promotional
tour, are you? Come on: is this a serious critique of letting copyrights expire
with the author?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 3:17:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:jay-2C9BAB.08150118032005@news.stanford.edu...
> In article <Fsp_d.21959$yp.12255@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
>> news:jay-2CB70D.07284717032005@news.stanford.edu...
>> > In article <znr1111008146k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
>> > wrote:
>> >I don't favor completely
>> > doing away with the current idea of copyright. I don't think it should
>> > be
>> > extended to the heirs of the creator, however.
>>
>> Ever? At all? Under any circumstances? So if you write a song that some
>> band
>> thinks might be a hit & they want to cover it & not have to pay any
>> royalties, they can simply have a hit put on you so your song will become
>> public domain & then make the same amount of money off it as if they
>> wrote
>> it themselves?
>>
>> Neil Henderson
>>
>>
>
> How many times do you think your scenario would be played out [excluding
> gangster rap...] If you murder someone you aren't like to manage the
> promotional
> tour, are you? Come on: is this a serious critique of letting copyrights
> expire
> with the author?

I was just utilizing an extreme scenario in order to illustrate that there
is indeed quite a bit of validity that a copyright should indeed be able to
be passed on to one's heirs.

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 5:13:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Kadis wrote:

> Come on: is this a serious critique of letting copyrights expire
> with the author?

While the Disneyfication of copyright term extension is of arguable
validity, I have no problem thinking it's okay for copyrights to outlast
the writer. But I have kids, and if my stuff earns a pittance or a pile
I'd like them to be able to catch some of that action efven if I'm gone.

--
ha
March 19, 2005 10:13:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 3/18/05 11:15 AM, in article jay-2C9BAB.08150118032005@news.stanford.edu,
"Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:

> In article <Fsp_d.21959$yp.12255@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
>> news:jay-2CB70D.07284717032005@news.stanford.edu...
>>> In article <znr1111008146k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>>> I don't favor completely
>>> doing away with the current idea of copyright. I don't think it should be
>>> extended to the heirs of the creator, however.

Ah, so you're an advocate of the concept that the embodiment of anyone's
life's work should have NO value to anyone, including direct heirs, past
their death?
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:31:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <BE61E40C.36AE%ssconmag1@verizon.net> ssconmag1@verizon.net writes:

> Ah, so you're an advocate of the concept that the embodiment of anyone's
> life's work should have NO value to anyone, including direct heirs, past
> their death?

We take care of our heirs during our lifetime. If a songwriter wanted
to use his work to take care of his heirs, with the money he makes
with his songs, he should set up a college trust fund, and buy an
insurance policy.

Writing a song isn't an insurance policy, but it will buy one.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
March 20, 2005 5:35:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The idea of Creative Commons, like copyright, has nothing to do with
money (directly) but just concerns legal ways in which to protect
intellectual property. Although the idea of "copyleft" and "free" have
been floating around a long time, this is the first venture to put
legally binding and tested contracts behind them. That is the main
contribution of the project.

Personally, I'm quite happy "giving away" rights to some of the things
I produce in this life, since they are of more value to society that
way. This potential value to society is greater than the potential
value to myself that the works have. Though by giving stuff away more
people experience it, so I am happier than I would be otherwise. Thus
I benefit too. :-)

I wouldn't expect that someone who makes their living from music
should give away their music for free, but there's lots of people who
make their living elsewhere and make music for non-financial reasons.

-- robin
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:23:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <vu1r31d8ij5m1meg66kl5puf0j9rdl0of7@4ax.com> escalation746@yahoo.com writes:

> The idea of Creative Commons, like copyright, has nothing to do with
> money (directly) but just concerns legal ways in which to protect
> intellectual property.

Protection does no good without enforcement.

> Personally, I'm quite happy "giving away" rights to some of the things
> I produce in this life, since they are of more value to society that
> way. This potential value to society is greater than the potential
> value to myself that the works have.

Nice of you to feel this way. I take it you have a day job.

So if you're giving them away, what's to protect? I think that it
would be a very good idea to be able to say: "You can have this for
free as long as you got it from me so I know how many copies are in
circulation. I don't mind if you play it for your friends, but if they
want a copy of their own, tell them to get it from me. You don't have
the right to "burn" them a copy or to put it on a file server which
can be accessed by anyone who can find it."

However, once you release the first copy, there's no way that you can
enforce that contract, at least not economically. You can only (and
already now can) state your wishes.

> I wouldn't expect that someone who makes their living from music
> should give away their music for free, but there's lots of people who
> make their living elsewhere and make music for non-financial reasons.

There are good reasons for those making their living from music to
give away some of it occasoinally, but not all of it any time someone
wants it.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 10:26:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <8cK_d.24009$YD4.5351@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
"Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:

> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:jay-2C9BAB.08150118032005@news.stanford.edu...
> > In article <Fsp_d.21959$yp.12255@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:jay-2CB70D.07284717032005@news.stanford.edu...
> >> > In article <znr1111008146k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >I don't favor completely
> >> > doing away with the current idea of copyright. I don't think it should
> >> > be
> >> > extended to the heirs of the creator, however.
> >>
> >> Ever? At all? Under any circumstances? So if you write a song that some
> >> band
> >> thinks might be a hit & they want to cover it & not have to pay any
> >> royalties, they can simply have a hit put on you so your song will become
> >> public domain & then make the same amount of money off it as if they
> >> wrote
> >> it themselves?
> >>
> >> Neil Henderson
> >>
> >>
> >
> > How many times do you think your scenario would be played out [excluding
> > gangster rap...] If you murder someone you aren't like to manage the
> > promotional
> > tour, are you? Come on: is this a serious critique of letting copyrights
> > expire
> > with the author?
>
> I was just utilizing an extreme scenario in order to illustrate that there
> is indeed quite a bit of validity that a copyright should indeed be able to
> be passed on to one's heirs.
>
> Neil Henderson
>
>

It didn't convince me. If I recall correctly, copyrights used to expire after
the author's life + 17 years or something similar. I didn't have a problem with
that. But the idea of perpetual copyrights handed down to heirs for generations
is not in the interest of the advancement of the arts.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 10:33:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <BE61E40C.36AE%ssconmag1@verizon.net>, John <ssconmag1@verizon.net>
wrote:

> On 3/18/05 11:15 AM, in article jay-2C9BAB.08150118032005@news.stanford.edu,
> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <Fsp_d.21959$yp.12255@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:jay-2CB70D.07284717032005@news.stanford.edu...
> >>> In article <znr1111008146k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> >>> I don't favor completely
> >>> doing away with the current idea of copyright. I don't think it should be
> >>> extended to the heirs of the creator, however.
>
> Ah, so you're an advocate of the concept that the embodiment of anyone's
> life's work should have NO value to anyone, including direct heirs, past
> their death?
>


I'm not an advocate of putting words in someone's mouth. I think you understand
the issue. Do your children have the right to expect the same ownership of your
work as you do? And their children?

I think that at some point the ideas should revert to the public domain.
Whether that point is the death of the author or some limited period thereafter
is open to debate, but the idea of perpetual control of the works by the
descendents or assignees of the creator permanently stiffles the advancement of
the arts.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 4:09:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:jay-76F154.07264621032005@news.stanford.edu...
> In article <8cK_d.24009$YD4.5351@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
>> news:jay-2C9BAB.08150118032005@news.stanford.edu...
>> > In article <Fsp_d.21959$yp.12255@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
>> > "Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jay Kadis" <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:jay-2CB70D.07284717032005@news.stanford.edu...
>> >> > In article <znr1111008146k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >I don't favor completely
>> >> > doing away with the current idea of copyright. I don't think it
>> >> > should
>> >> > be
>> >> > extended to the heirs of the creator, however.
>> >>
>> >> Ever? At all? Under any circumstances? So if you write a song that
>> >> some
>> >> band
>> >> thinks might be a hit & they want to cover it & not have to pay any
>> >> royalties, they can simply have a hit put on you so your song will
>> >> become
>> >> public domain & then make the same amount of money off it as if they
>> >> wrote
>> >> it themselves?
>> >>
>> >> Neil Henderson
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > How many times do you think your scenario would be played out
>> > [excluding
>> > gangster rap...] If you murder someone you aren't like to manage the
>> > promotional
>> > tour, are you? Come on: is this a serious critique of letting
>> > copyrights
>> > expire
>> > with the author?
>>
>> I was just utilizing an extreme scenario in order to illustrate that
>> there
>> is indeed quite a bit of validity that a copyright should indeed be able
>> to
>> be passed on to one's heirs.
>>
>> Neil Henderson
>>
>>
>
> It didn't convince me. If I recall correctly, copyrights used to expire
> after
> the author's life + 17 years or something similar. I didn't have a
> problem with
> that. But the idea of perpetual copyrights handed down to heirs for
> generations
> is not in the interest of the advancement of the arts.

Well, damn, then it was a total waste of time... as opposed to EVERY other
newsgroup post I've ever made! :D 

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 4:39:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:26:46 -0800, Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> If I recall correctly, copyrights used to expire after
>the author's life + 17 years or something similar. I didn't have a problem with
>that. But the idea of perpetual copyrights handed down to heirs for generations
>is not in the interest of the advancement of the arts.
>
>-Jay

Jay, first off, I'm not making a right vs wrong judgement here, I want
to consider folks' opinions in order to draw my own conclusions. I
understand the first part of your post (above) and see your logic in
it.
Could you perhaps clarify for me the second part? I'm not sure I
comprehend your point (which could just mean that I've not thought the
issue through as much as you have.) Would you further explain how you
feel that perpetual copyrights stifle the advancement of the arts,
possibly with an example or two? I would mostly like to be clear on
the point you're making.


====================
Tracy Wintermute
arrgh@greenapple.com
Rushcreek Ranch
====================
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 10:47:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <9thv311q8300b5ub3287dk2ftalmionslo@4ax.com>,
Tracy Wintermute <arrgh@greenapple.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:26:46 -0800, Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > If I recall correctly, copyrights used to expire after
> >the author's life + 17 years or something similar. I didn't have a problem
> >with
> >that. But the idea of perpetual copyrights handed down to heirs for
> >generations
> >is not in the interest of the advancement of the arts.
> >
> >-Jay
>
> Jay, first off, I'm not making a right vs wrong judgement here, I want
> to consider folks' opinions in order to draw my own conclusions. I
> understand the first part of your post (above) and see your logic in
> it.
> Could you perhaps clarify for me the second part? I'm not sure I
> comprehend your point (which could just mean that I've not thought the
> issue through as much as you have.) Would you further explain how you
> feel that perpetual copyrights stifle the advancement of the arts,
> possibly with an example or two? I would mostly like to be clear on
> the point you're making.
>
>
> ====================
> Tracy Wintermute
> arrgh@greenapple.com
> Rushcreek Ranch
> ====================


Well, the idea that musical ideas can be perpetually sequestered by the heirs of
the creator will limit the access for musicians and composers of the future.
The ability to perform the works can be hindered by complicated requirements,
payment of royalties, and general uncertainty about what's legal and what isn't.
Imagine if the works of Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Schubert, all the classical
composers we so revere, were owned by their heirs. Do you think we'd have a
vital symphony community?

And there's the issue of building new compositions. New works are often derived
from the work of past masters, either intentionally or less so. After some
period of time, it would be advantageous to allow the musical ideas to fall into
the public domain where they might become incorporated into new works or at
least modified and adapted to new creations. The computer music world often
samples other works and sound sources as raw material for new compositions. The
ability to use these previous works to create new ones that might not even be
recognized as derived from the older works after clever electronic manipulation
is in the interest of the advancement of the art.

This is not to say that the songwriter of a pop hit isn't due the immediate
economic rewards that come with a commercial success. Just that at some time in
the future the songs should become public domain. And the successive
generations of decendents of the writer, who have nothing tangible to do with
the creation, should not benefit at the expense of the public.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 7:53:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Kadis wrote:

> Well, the idea that musical ideas can be perpetually sequestered by the heirs of
> the creator will limit the access for musicians and composers of the future.
> The ability to perform the works can be hindered by complicated requirements,
> payment of royalties, and general uncertainty about what's legal and what isn't.
> Imagine if the works of Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Schubert, all the classical
> composers we so revere, were owned by their heirs. Do you think we'd have a
> vital symphony community?
>
> And there's the issue of building new compositions. New works are often derived
> from the work of past masters, either intentionally or less so. After some
> period of time, it would be advantageous to allow the musical ideas to fall into
> the public domain where they might become incorporated into new works or at
> least modified and adapted to new creations. The computer music world often
> samples other works and sound sources as raw material for new compositions. The
> ability to use these previous works to create new ones that might not even be
> recognized as derived from the older works after clever electronic manipulation
> is in the interest of the advancement of the art.
>
> This is not to say that the songwriter of a pop hit isn't due the immediate
> economic rewards that come with a commercial success. Just that at some time in
> the future the songs should become public domain. And the successive
> generations of decendents of the writer, who have nothing tangible to do with
> the creation, should not benefit at the expense of the public.
>
> -Jay

Consider also a site such as the following...

http://www.gutenberg.org/

....which has thousands of online books free of copyright.

It is funny though how intellectual property is different than material
property. Imagine if you developed some land, built a house, and it
became public domain after you died. Or if a master painting became
public domain. I can't think why intellectual property should be any
different (due apparently to its intangible quality), but I'm glad that
it is.

-Naren
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 8:17:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:53:00 -0800, Naren <naren99@aol.com> wrote:

>Imagine if you developed some land, built a house, and it
>became public domain after you died.

WOuldn't that be the republican ideal... everyman is a self-made
man...

Al
March 22, 2005 11:45:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

>> The idea of Creative Commons, like copyright, has nothing to do with
>> money (directly) but just concerns legal ways in which to protect
>> intellectual property.
>
>Protection does no good without enforcement.

Of course.

>> Personally, I'm quite happy "giving away" rights to some of the things
>> I produce in this life, since they are of more value to society that
>> way. This potential value to society is greater than the potential
>> value to myself that the works have.
>
>Nice of you to feel this way. I take it you have a day job.

Yeah. By day I'm a poet. ;-)

This comment sounds a lot like you didn't read the bit I wrote later,
even though you quote it:

>> I wouldn't expect that someone who makes their living from music
>> should give away their music for free, but there's lots of people who
>> make their living elsewhere and make music for non-financial reasons.

>However, once you release the first copy, there's no way that you can
>enforce that contract, at least not economically. You can only (and
>already now can) state your wishes.

Except the difference is that the Creative Commons contracts are
legally enforceable (in theory) whereas me just saying something is
not enforceable (not even in theory). Also, the contracts (note
plural) give various options based on the desires of the rights owner.

>There are good reasons for those making their living from music to
>give away some of it occasoinally, but not all of it any time someone
>wants it.

Well sure. I am now competely failing to understand your beef with
giving people more options, which is all Creative Commons does. I
would say we should just "agree to disagree" except in this case it's
more like we should "disagree to agree" :-)

-- robin
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:45:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <vh014111oqfgb1ahvo46t837n4774l73s4@4ax.com> escalation746@yahoo.com writes:

> Yeah. By day I'm a poet. ;-)

Does anyone take a poet's profits by passing your poems around on the
Internet? How do poets make money anyway?

> This comment sounds a lot like you didn't read the bit I wrote later,
> even though you quote it:
>
> >> I wouldn't expect that someone who makes their living from music
> >> should give away their music for free, but there's lots of people who
> >> make their living elsewhere and make music for non-financial reasons.

I started replying before reading the whole message. When I saw that
you wrote that, I had a comment (as you see, since you quoted it).

> >However, once you release the first copy, there's no way that you can
> >enforce that contract, at least not economically. You can only (and
> >already now can) state your wishes.
>
> Except the difference is that the Creative Commons contracts are
> legally enforceable (in theory) whereas me just saying something is
> not enforceable (not even in theory).

Well, copyrights are legally enforceable, too. But you see how far
we're getting with that. What's different about Creative Commons other
than the fact that it's owned by the creator rather than "the man" so
it might get a little more respect by the common people?

> >There are good reasons for those making their living from music to
> >give away some of it occasoinally, but not all of it any time someone
> >wants it.
>
> Well sure. I am now competely failing to understand your beef with
> giving people more options, which is all Creative Commons does. I
> would say we should just "agree to disagree" except in this case it's
> more like we should "disagree to agree" :-)

I want to know what good the more options does? Right now we're able
to control the use of our copyrights any way we choose. What we can't
control is the misuse of those copyrights. How is Creative Commons
going to change this? A copyright exists once you fix your work in a
tangible metdium. It's something you can sell, assign, keep under your
mattress, or pass on to your grandchildren.

If you choose to not restrict the use of your material, all you have
to do is simply not enforce your copyright. But if you decide to put
your material out where it can be heard, whether you retain your right
to enforce the copyright or not, it can be copied and there's nothing
you can do to stop that. If your Creative Commons "option" is, say, to
restrict the use of your material until December 31, 2020, at which
time it enters the public domain, the only difference between that and
what we have now is that you get to state it in advance. Can you
modify this "contract" unilaterally if your song languishes for the
next 14 years and in October 2020 it takes off and starts selling like
hotcakes?

I'm trying to understand the benefit of this new name for what we
already have, that doesn't work the way we would like it to. Give me
some examples.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:39:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Kadis wrote:

> Imagine if the works of Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Schubert, all the classical
> composers we so revere, were owned by their heirs. Do you think we'd have a
> vital symphony community?

Nationally viewed, we already definitely do not have a vital symphony
community, but I don't think it's due to copyright hobbling the public's
interest.

This is an interesting area, in that if we take an attitude toward
intellectual property that is even partially apart from the way we view
other forms of property, we might stir a smelly kettle by asking the
same questions about all kinds of things that represent material wealth
or potential material wealth. What if money could only go one moer
generation down a line? Etc.

--
ha
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:09:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1gtuiee.1d8f6ln18kudj3N%walkinay@thegrid.net>,
walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:

> Jay Kadis wrote:
>
> > Imagine if the works of Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Schubert, all the classical
> > composers we so revere, were owned by their heirs. Do you think we'd have a
> > vital symphony community?
>
> Nationally viewed, we already definitely do not have a vital symphony
> community, but I don't think it's due to copyright hobbling the public's
> interest.
>

But consider how the inability to play the repertoire would have diminished what
is left of the symphony scene. (My brother just played mandolin with the San
Francisco Symphony, so around here it's still a viable entity, the symphony.
They even played Carnegie Hall last week. Sorry for the bragging, but he earned
it.)

> This is an interesting area, in that if we take an attitude toward
> intellectual property that is even partially apart from the way we view
> other forms of property, we might stir a smelly kettle by asking the
> same questions about all kinds of things that represent material wealth
> or potential material wealth. What if money could only go one moer
> generation down a line? Etc.
>
> --
> ha


I think there's a fundamental difference between intellectual property and real
property. Real property exists as a single physical entity that cannot be
replicated. An idea can be reused ad infinitum without requiring it be
inaccessible to the originator. Also, ideas can be incorporated and/or
developed into new ideas based on the original. The difference is clear enough
to prevent serious confusion between intellectual and real property rights.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 4:57:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Kadis wrote:
> In article <BE61E40C.36AE%ssconmag1@verizon.net>, John <ssconmag1@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Ah, so you're an advocate of the concept that the embodiment of anyone's
>> life's work should have NO value to anyone, including direct heirs, past
>> their death?
>
>
> I'm not an advocate of putting words in someone's mouth. I think you understand
> the issue. Do your children have the right to expect the same ownership of your
> work as you do? And their children?
>
> I think that at some point the ideas should revert to the public domain.
> Whether that point is the death of the author or some limited period thereafter
> is open to debate, but the idea of perpetual control of the works by the
> descendents or assignees of the creator permanently stiffles the advancement of
> the arts.

For those who have not had the pleasure, the historic debates on
copyright are quite fascinating.

Early background from the Statute of Anne and Donaldson v. Beckett
<http://www.copyrighthistory.com/donaldson.html&gt;, but particularly
Thomas Babington Macaulay's brilliant speeches to the House of Commons
regarding the possible extension of copyright length
<http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm&gt;
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 6:11:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1111535193k@trad...

> I'm trying to understand the benefit of this new name for what we
> already have, that doesn't work the way we would like it to. Give me
> some examples.

Think about it, the only thing standing in the way of a consolidation of
digital media patent holders creating a total monopoly over all digital
media is the small matter of "content" copyright. Lots of "open source"
media leaves all of us pee-ons who create original new "content" having to
compete with free.

If you want an absolutely bountiful grant from the Silicon Valley crowd, all
you need to do is come up with some cool concepts that undermine individual
copyright owners' negotiating positions. What amazes me is how many people
can't seem to see through this scam.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 6:25:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gtuiee.1d8f6ln18kudj3N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> This is an interesting area, in that if we take an attitude toward
> intellectual property that is even partially apart from the way we view
> other forms of property, we might stir a smelly kettle by asking the
> same questions about all kinds of things that represent material wealth
> or potential material wealth. What if money could only go one moer
> generation down a line? Etc.


This is precisely where this selective socialism bullsh!t falls apart. Why
should individuals in the creative community give up their property rights
prior to corporate and real estate interests giving up all of THEIRS?

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 7:47:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I once heard a person define a Copyright as the only thing
in the universe that is more valuable the more it is used.

I am sure there are people that will poke holes in that.
noetheless it is a hell of a thing to throw away.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 10:33:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1xL0e.5651$cg1.2517@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote:

> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> news:1gtuiee.1d8f6ln18kudj3N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> > This is an interesting area, in that if we take an attitude toward
> > intellectual property that is even partially apart from the way we view
> > other forms of property, we might stir a smelly kettle by asking the
> > same questions about all kinds of things that represent material wealth
> > or potential material wealth. What if money could only go one moer
> > generation down a line? Etc.
>
>
> This is precisely where this selective socialism bullsh!t falls apart. Why
> should individuals in the creative community give up their property rights
> prior to corporate and real estate interests giving up all of THEIRS?


There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator losing
their ability to use the property. Real property cannot be so replicated. I'm
not arguing for the end of copyright and ownership of intellectual property, but
the difference in nature will have to be addressed if we want a viable method of
recompense for our ideas.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:23:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:33:30 -0800, Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu>
wrote:

>In article <1xL0e.5651$cg1.2517@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote:

>>> ...

>> This is precisely where this selective socialism bullsh!t falls apart. Why
>> should individuals in the creative community give up their property rights
>> prior to corporate and real estate interests giving up all of THEIRS?
>
>
>There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
>intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator losing
>their ability to use the property.

This (inexpensive) replication thing is a result of the advances in
technology. Replication used to be a job of scribes writing longhand,
then Gutenberg had a bright idea.

>Real property cannot be so replicated.

This might well also change (perhaps not in our lifetimes) with the
continued advances of technology.

>I'm
>not arguing for the end of copyright and ownership of intellectual property, but
>the difference in nature will have to be addressed if we want a viable method of
>recompense for our ideas.

Copyright laws have historically been good for protecting
intellectual rights, but with copying being SO cheap and easy ($39
CD-RW drives, 20 cent CD-R's, and p2p as a huge source of copyrighted
material), most violations can't even be detected, much less punished.
You still can't steal someone else's song and make a hit out of it
without getting caught, but at the consumer level, copyrights are
currently operating on the honor system.

>-Jay

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3pf841l2t83pinkq32e5hnd21frl93gp3d@4ax.com>,
Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote:
[snip]

>
> Copyright laws have historically been good for protecting
> intellectual rights, but with copying being SO cheap and easy ($39
> CD-RW drives, 20 cent CD-R's, and p2p as a huge source of copyrighted
> material), most violations can't even be detected, much less punished.
> You still can't steal someone else's song and make a hit out of it
> without getting caught, but at the consumer level, copyrights are
> currently operating on the honor system.
>

That's the nature of the problem. The cat's already out of the bag, so to
speak. So what possible mechanisms exist for adapting to the current state?

I like the idea of micropayments tied to downloads of copyrighted materials.
The exact mechanism of such a system is not completely obvious, but a system in
which users are free to download anything and are charged a small amount from an
account administered by the ISP is one possibility, monitoring the downloaded
material for a watermark or signature that identifies the owner's account. We
need to develop such a system to address the reality of what's going on already.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:23:14 GMT, Ben Bradley
<ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:33:30 -0800, Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <1xL0e.5651$cg1.2517@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote:
>
>>>> ...
>
>>> This is precisely where this selective socialism bullsh!t falls apart. Why
>>> should individuals in the creative community give up their property rights
>>> prior to corporate and real estate interests giving up all of THEIRS?
>>
>>
>>There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
>>intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator losing
>>their ability to use the property.
>
> This (inexpensive) replication thing is a result of the advances in
>technology. Replication used to be a job of scribes writing longhand,
>then Gutenberg had a bright idea.

Not exactly. Before recording technology appeared music could still
be replicated live by other musicians. Stories could be re-told by
other story-tellers, etc etc. Yes, they weren't exact copies but it's
still re-using the property.

Al
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 7:28:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:

> Jay Kadis wrote:
>
>
>>Imagine if the works of Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Schubert, all the classical
>>composers we so revere, were owned by their heirs. Do you think we'd have a
>>vital symphony community?
>
>
> Nationally viewed, we already definitely do not have a vital symphony
> community, but I don't think it's due to copyright hobbling the public's
> interest.
>
> This is an interesting area, in that if we take an attitude toward
> intellectual property that is even partially apart from the way we view
> other forms of property, we might stir a smelly kettle by asking the
> same questions about all kinds of things that represent material wealth
> or potential material wealth. What if money could only go one moer
> generation down a line? Etc.
>
> --
> ha

I thin' that property is fine, until we're called upon
to defend it. Then it gets ugly.

--
Les Cargill
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 7:30:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> >There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
> >intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator
losing
> >their ability to use the property.

Excuse me, since when is getting paid for it not USING the property?

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 11:03:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <sou84110glk9nicng8p93bpdksvn7gh9t0@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> Before recording technology appeared music could still
> be replicated live by other musicians.

Yeah, but you can catch then and shake them down for royalties. That's
what ASCAP and BMI do with clubs that have music (only today we call
it licensing).

> Stories could be re-told by
> other story-tellers, etc etc. Yes, they weren't exact copies but it's
> still re-using the property.

We call that "folklore," and besides, all the stories are true.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 26 Mar 2005 08:03:24 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <sou84110glk9nicng8p93bpdksvn7gh9t0@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> Before recording technology appeared music could still
>> be replicated live by other musicians.
>
>Yeah, but you can catch then and shake them down for royalties. That's
>what ASCAP and BMI do with clubs that have music (only today we call
>it licensing).
>
>> Stories could be re-told by
>> other story-tellers, etc etc. Yes, they weren't exact copies but it's
>> still re-using the property.
>
>We call that "folklore," and besides, all the stories are true.

One person's folklore is another person's copyright infringement...

AL
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:50:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1blb415nieftp0dq1v1rjhf260dbocid4g@4ax.com...
> One person's folklore is another person's copyright infringement...

Some "folklore" is in the public domain and some isn't.

The fact is that literature has much more stringent copyright protection
than music does.

that's life...

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 2:02:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3A51e.9262$cg1.5505@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote:

> > >There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
> > >intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator
> losing
> > >their ability to use the property.
>
> Excuse me, since when is getting paid for it not USING the property?


I'm afraid you lost me there...?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 12:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:02:34 -0800, Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu>
wrote:

>In article <3A51e.9262$cg1.5505@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote:
>
>> > >There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
>> > >intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator
>> losing
>> > >their ability to use the property.
>>
>> Excuse me, since when is getting paid for it not USING the property?
>
>
>I'm afraid you lost me there...?

I understood him. If you're selling copies of an intellectual work
(to which you have the rights), you're using it to get paid. Someone
else making and giving away copies reduces your market and your
ability to sell your copies.
Thus the part Bob quoted is false: When others replicate it, the
original creator DOES lose their ability to use the property.

>-Jay

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
!