On Friday 28 April 2006 03:34 pm, Steve Lamb wrote: > Andy Streich wrote: > > Just the other day I was watching a Senate > > hearing where a songwriter was saying she could not make a living without > > the copyright and IPR laws. And I've wondered a long time about how the > > economy might have to change if there were no IPR. The idea has appeal > > in so many ways, then you run smack into the wall of monetary incentives. > > They'd live the same way they do now. Remember, IPLs are why the > record companies make money. They songs are owned by the record companies, > not the artists. Artists, big and small, make their money through live > performances which copyright IPL or the lack thereof does not alter as the > audience is going to watch the people perform their songs. > > Well, of course there's cover bands and lounge acts. But by and > large... ;)
That does not seem accurate. Royalties from radio play and sales are significant to many artists. The songwriter I heard said she makes $0.09 (some sort of average figure) each time a song of hers is played on the radio and that sort of income was essential for her. > No, I'm afraid IPL is pretty dumb to me. I'm having a hard time > grasping why one of the activities in these lists are illegal and the rest > are not. > > Borrowing a book from a library. > Having a friend lend you a book they like. > Having a friend tell you the plot of a book they like. > Downloading a copy of the book. > > Borrowing a CD from a library. > Having a friend lend you a CD they like. > Having a friend sing a song from a CD they like. > Downloading a copy of the CD. > > Borrowing a video from a library. > Having a friend lend you a video they like. > Having a friend tell you the plot of a video they like. > Downloading a copy of the video. Current law makes downloading different from your other options illegal because of the speed and quality of copy you can make and the ease of doing so with digital formats -- at least that's how the IPR argument goes. (This was the precise point of the Senate hearing I witnessed.) > In each case the content producer gets paid once (Library, friend, etc) > and the intellectual property, the content, is distributed. Yet three of > the four cases it is legal and has been encouraged for decades while the > fourth, the exact same activity, is illegal. Yes, but now new technology has changed the game. > The really sad thing? Most authors would kill to have their books lent > out a few times from libraries/friends to build up a following.... and yet > don't want their books downloaded for fear of some kind of intellectual > theft. *boggle* There are many books I would not buy if I could get free electronic copies -- just the plain text would be enough. I can see an author being concerned about that. > IPL and copyright in today's world have very little to do with > protecting individual's interests. It is often used to strip individuals > of their rights (ala musical artists). Tod Rungren would agree; he testified at the hearing as well, opposing the songwriter. But I was thinking more of how established businesses (like Sun, IBM, HP, Intel) and startups would function without IPR laws and "protections". I find it hard to imagine because we have no examples in developed countries, and I've benefited materially from being part of a tiny startup that was acquired for its IP. I wish there was a way to get by without IPL because of the many positive things that would be enabled by doing so, but in a capitalist economy it doesn't seem viable to do away with it. And, imagining the USA and other developed countries moving to a different kind of economy any time soon isn't too realistic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
