Comments on: Copyright is Failing, Who Feeds the Artists? Asks EU Commissioner

By: Hollandscottthomas

Hollandscottthomas — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 02:25:00 +0000

All this argument about whether the artist is getting money from copyright above.
*sigh*
YES, they do see SOME money, but MOST of it goes to ALL THE MIDDLEMEN WHO DIDN’T CREATE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
The issue here is that with digital distribution there is a new freedom for artists to take their own creation and market and sell it themselves, direct to consumer, without middlemen. And THAT is where the copyright industry is about to lose all its income and THAT is why their panties are all in a bunch. As one example:
http://torrentfreak.com/the-copyright-industry-a-century-of-deceit-111127/
The POINT is that we need to stop getting caught in all this bitching about what constitutes copyright infringement and start showing more support for other methods that will benefit the ARTISTS, not the people benefitting from the artists work by being middlemen. Because that inevitably leads to profit incentives, and then distribution becomes skewed in favour of profitability, not artistry. WHICH IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM.
Digital distribution is not the issue. The fact we don’t have an effective system to replace the old ones yet is. Traditional copyright is a square peg trying to fit new media’s round hole and it doesn’t like it.

By: wakabe

wakabe — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:25:00 +0000

That’s the thing, changing the copyright laws for the betterment of artists and customers would make them feel like they’re being cheated out of “their” money.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:45:00 +0000

linkhide.com.ar/47632

By: Fredrika

Fredrika — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:55:00 +0000

> “Everything you said is wrong.”

No?

> “But as you clearly have no education in business law..”

My claims are not dependent on any education in business law, they are dependent on the actual writings in relevant copyright legislation and consumer legislation, of which i have a very deep knowledge of.

> “..and are responding just to be contrarian..”

I was responding to try to clear up a bunch of incorrect clams by you, that simply are not factual.

> “..I won’t waste my time responding.”

You mean you won’t argue against it, and the reason you won’t do that is because there’s no support for your claims in any relevant legislation, or a dictionary.

By: Motmaitre

Motmaitre — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:48:00 +0000

Everything you said is wrong. But as you clearly have no education in business law, and are responding just to be contrarian, I won’t waste my time responding.

By: Fredrika

Fredrika — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:40:00 +0000

You have gotten things a bit wrong in the following statements of yours, thought i'd let you know, even if the discussion is deep down and buried by now. > "Similarly, when you buy a DVD, the contract you agreed to by paying for it only transfers the rght to watch it, not to comemrcialise it. This in incorrect. No contract is entered when you buy a physical copy. The only thing that happens when you buy a DVD is the transference of ownership over the physical copy. What you are allowed to do with that copy is in no way determined by the purchase, it is determined by the copyright law in the country which you currently reside in. > "Copying it is no different from renting a car and then reselling it." Oh yes it is. Copying is the act of manufacturing a new copy with your own physical property. In the car example the property belongs to someone else. > "You may own the physical DVD, but not the intelelctual property on it." There is no intellectual property on a DVD? There's an intellectual work on the DVD, but an intellectual work does not constitute intellectual property. The unfortunately named term "intellectual property" does not refer to the intellectual work, it refers to the copyright monopoly, which is a piece of intangible property that can be owned, bought or sold. An intellectual work can never be owned, sold or bought. It does not constitute any kind of property. > "And when you buy a DVD or book or song, it is very clearly stated on it that copyright remains with the artist." What texts the publisher chooses to print on a packaging has no legal relevance. > "So your ENTIRE premise that buying something gives you absolute property rights is completely and utterly wrong." It is not. When you buy a piece of physical goods, you own it 100%. Any later intrusions into that property, such as the copyright monopoly's intrusion into peoples physical property, is not determined or relevant to the purchase of the goods. > "You only have the rights granted to you in the sales contract." No "contract" is entered by a customer when you buy something, consumer laws are very clear on that point. > "unless you signed a licensing agreement, you are stealing if you make unauthorized copies. When you with your own physical property manufacture a copy you might possibly be infringing on a legislative monopoly, but that is never stealing. Stealing is when you permanently deprive an owner of a unique piece of property, that he previously had in his possession, which he afterwards no longer has in his possession.

By: Ogra

Ogra — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:49:00 +0000

My opinions are fake? What evidence do you have for this? Because I like property rights and dislike unnecessary violence? How contradictory. Ah yes, my persistence. This is obviously due to my getting a paycheck. It couldn’t be anything else, like, oh, I don’t know, I’m a college student on Thanksgiving break with a bunch of free time on his hands that he’s wasting posting on an internet forum. Couldn’t possibly be that. That’s just unheard of.

Anyone can make an accusation of trolling. In fact, I could make one against you right now; all of your comments in this thread here were posted from a different e-mail address. This makes it difficult/impossible to read your full comment history. Now why would that be true unless you’re saying contradictory things in your comment history

Of course, that’s bullshit. Most of these accusations are. It’s a way of avoiding debate. Now, would you like to debate? I’ve been taking political science and ethics. I think I can tell you exactly why violence is a bad solution here both morally and practically.

By: Motmaitre

Motmaitre — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:46:00 +0000

You are clearly butthurt, and therefore resorting to ad hominem attacks.
I read everything you wrote. It was ridiculous. A creative commons concert is just as silly as an open source concert. The theme of the concert is completely irrelevant, because the artist makes money not from the theme, but from the fact that people PAY MONEY to hear the music. Or they earn money from broadcasting rights, which they wouldn’t do without copyright protection.

Everything you said was dumb. Those ‘useless laws’ are a problem for thieves who want to rob artists blind. The politician cited in the article is a pandering slimeball like all politicians- trying to be populist while avoiding the obvious fact that if artists are not making money, it is because people like you are stealing their work and distributing it for free.

There is only ONE way for an artist to make money from their work. That is to sell it. They can’t do that if somepne else sells or distributes it without paying them. Period. Very simple.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:18:00 +0000

Motmaitre, you obviously didn’t read anything of what I said. I never said that “A concert is an example of making money from open source”. I said a concert is an example of making money from Creative Commons. Of course, I can’t expect much better from someone who posts comments in favor of weighing down the economy with useless laws that are meant to restrict freedoms while making blog posts about how government wastes so much money on useless things. Or someone who believes- despite the RIAA’s own numbers- that CD and single-song sales make up for a greater (or even significantly comparable) amount of profit when compared against ticket sales.

You see, Motmaitre, unlike you I do my research. Wordmaster is a great name for you, by the way. Certainly, it’s more accurate than Logicmaster. If you ever dedicate yourself to getting a PhD., might I suggest changing your screen name to Doctourne (that’s ‘Spindoctor’, just in case that flew over your head with the rest of your basic reasoning skills)?

Oh, and next time… how about proving me wrong, instead of just claiming that my argument is off-kilter without actually providing any evidence or reasoning to the contrary?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:18:00 +0000

Oh, and next time… how about proving me wrong, instead of just claiming that my argument is off-kilter without actually providing any evidence or reasoning to the contrary?