snarlydwarf;200626 Wrote: > > ? Of course you can copyright a painting. Just as you can copyright a > photograph.
You're right - but in the case of painting, I don't think it's the law that's really important. Once an artist becomes famous her work has an intrinsic value because it was created by her - and no matter how accurately I copy it, no one will attribute the same value to my copy. That's got nothing to do with the law. The case of live music is similar - if music copyrights went away, musicians could cover and sample each other's songs at will, but a cover is never the same as the original. Another example is academics. While there are laws governing plagiarism, they're just about totally irrelevant, because there is a culture of attribution within the academy that is far more powerful than any law. If a historian gets caught having plagiarized something, the legal aspect is the least of his worries - the destruction of his academic reputation, probable loss of his job. etc. matter much more. In my field (physics) - when I "publish" a paper I put it on the web, freely available to all without any copyright, because I WANT people to copy it and work from it - so long as they reference me. And they have to reference me, because if they don't they will be forced out of the field. Just about every paper in physics and math now appears (and stays permanently) on a free web server long before it shows up in a traditional journal - here it is if you're curious: www.arxiv.org -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34928 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
