Very good observation except that multimedia is not the only copyrighted materials available on the net. Images, printed publications etc were all available from the start.
Since the Library of Congress and Copyright offices are branches of the gov it is more likely that it was a gross oversight. Left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing etc........
Yes, the right to assign is fine. Exploitation is fine too = Capitalism. The problem is how to move forward productively based upon the Constitution, which to date is the root equation. That equation starts with the root principle-CREATORS. Once we move ahead you can be sure big business will be back to get those assigns and exploit them as usual. But Congress has no obligation to make laws on behalf of big business, however they ARE obligated to do it for the CREATORS. read the following please........
Rowena, our organization is focused on multimedia via mobile networks as a new revenue stream so we will have a perspective that supports those copyright initiatives going forward. However, you bring up an interesting scenario that can be resolved. The existing business model in the music industry is where the creator/writer/publisher are considered as one. So when a creator signs or shares rights with a publisher they share the revenue generated. The revenue is usually generated from sales/performances of the materials that are usually produced/manufactured by a recording label, (one example of big business is a recording label). The recording label has to pay the creator/writer/publisher a statutory rate for the copyrighted material used in its sound recording. It has been an accepted business practice for recording companies to also have a publishing company. Herein lies the “coerced or forced” scenario. Big business is not doing anything illegal but they use this in the make or break a deal negotiations. They pay publishers the statutory rate mainly because they are at the “collection point of a sale”. In the strategy that we advocate, “the collective” would be at the point of sale and therefore be in a position to pay the statutory rate directly to the creator/publisher and it’s assignees in that order. The assignees could be the recording company, production company and any other participants in the exploitation of the materials. Now this scenario could only work in a situation where a statutory rate was set that would include considerations for assignees, (as datarevenue.org is proposing for mobile networks) but it would be set on behalf of the creator/writer/publisher, not big business. The creator/writer/publisher can make their deal with big business to share in that revenue but won’t have to depend on big business to administrate and/or pay it to them. Please keep in mind that we are only advocating for the future of multimedia via mobile networks as a new revenue stream.
Now, to be included in this futuristic but necessary scenario you as a book/print author would have to find a way to convert your materials to multimedia. There are a number of ways that you may do that but you must think creatively about the options and understand that this would be a new revenue stream and not a replacement for your current model.
That is the same preamble in the Constitution that we reference. But did you notice that the Constitution is for the people as individuals NOT big business. Big business legally rode the principles of this as they started their own publishing companies and coerced CREATORS into signing some or all of those CREATOR's rights to them. Which they then exploited. Big business was only doing what businesses do..make money legally anyway they can. But that caused conflict when the gov prematurely unleashed the Internet so now all those copyrights that big business invested in were in jeopardy of NOT making money anymore and so they rose up defensively and turned the Internet generation off. All the time they were dong this they were carrying the banner of CREATOR'S rights and causing confusion upon the Constitutions real intentions, CREATOR'S RIGHTS.
ur exactly right...the middlemen, (BIG BUSINESS) should NOT be involved in setting new policy, they have abused the system and that's why the Internet generation is justified in resenting their efforts to maintain control.
BUT........new revenue streams for creators of songs and similar content should be backed by the government on behalf of creators because that is in the Constitution. And it shouldn’t require that a creator/writer turn into a merchandiser etc. Reasonable use of statutory rates will work fine in the background and the collective can consist of a democratically administrated group representing the members, industries and entities involved.
As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
So, it is the government that should help fix this mess on behalf of CREATORS of copyrighted materials which is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. Although our government may have missed this opportunity via the “first edition” Internet they can get it right this time with the “second edition” Internet - Mobile Networks. After all, in time there will be many more Internet transactions done via mobile networks and devices than tethered Internet transactions. Now’s the time to put these measures in place. Can we get some help? DataRevenue.Org has been unsupported in these efforts and its about time we reached out for help from those that are about actions beyond words. Can you hear us now?
The Internet generation is right...big business HAS abused the copyright system that was intended for CREATORS. But, new revenue streams for creators of songs and similar content should be backed by the government on behalf of creators because that is in the Constitution. And it shouldn’t require that a creator/writer turn into a merchandiser etc. Reasonable use of statutory rates will work fine in the background and the collective can consist of a democratically administrated group representing the members, industries and entities involved. The CREATOR in this scenario will be at the top of the food chain.
As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that a CREATOR/rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
So, it is the government that should help fix this mess on behalf of creators of copyrighted materials which is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. Although our government may have missed this opportunity via the “first edition” Internet they can get it right this time with the “second edition” Internet - Mobile Networks. After all, in time there will be many more Internet transactions done via mobile networks and devices than tethered Internet transactions. Now’s the time to put these measures in place. Can we get some help? DataRevenue.Org has been unsupported in these efforts and its about time we reached out for help from those that are about actions beyond words. Can you hear us now?
I used to blame the music industry for being asleep at the wheel when this Internet thing came about.....but now afer much research and soul searching I realize its not really their fault. All businesses affected by digitization had no clue of what was coming. Here's the truth...........
"As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
Basically, a statutory rate should have been established. Whereas, whenever copyrighted materials were downloaded, (this is a form of distribution and publication), via an ISP the rate would kick in to be deposited with a designated collective that represented the interests of ALL rights holders.
It is my guess that The Library of Congress was not privy to the conversation."
Reuters is starting to get it....I luv it....there's always going to be a "next". May as well look for that. It's just a waste of time to look for new ways to keep the old ways.
I don't think it was very smart for the "industry" or those effected by digitization to try and stop the copying. Had they unified back in the 90's they could have installed a system at the very top, (ISPs) that could have accounted for ALL multimedia activities via the Internet, (instead each entity tried to amend laws particular to themselves). But after 10 years of wasting time trying to stop copying and p2p sharing those old sub-systems of copyright exploitation are struggling to survive.
Clarifying: any new systems should be based upon copyright laws......we need a copyright system, so any new systems would actually be sub-systems within the U.S. copyright system which of course can be amended "by the people" if they decide to act, (just talking about it or bad mouthing copyright laws is not productive enough).
I agree, these entities are already set in their ways. They will probably implode one day, (from the inside).
In the mean time we need to think ahead with our solutions for the good of the people concerned. As you say here, build on new systems that will make sense 20-50 years from now, (which is about how long the old system was valid).
The Internet generation has to stop lumping copyright protection with big business. Big business's job was to exploit copyrights on behalf of the creators that didn't know how to do it themselves. Well they exploited themselves right out of business but you better believe they enjoyed it while it lasted. Now it's over. This is the age of self publishing. Those who publish in this age have to learn to incorporate or refine existing laws to define this era. History shows it's more likely to be done by improving the existing system NOT by totally destroying the idea born of many generations of shoulder standing.
True...but they don't make sense now because multimedia players did not unite when the Internet was born. It was every man for themselves and the opportunity was missed for positive growth putting them all on the nonproductive defensive for 10 years!
It's no wonder the Internet generation has a negative point of view about copyright protection. All they've heard is "stop it, you can't do this, you can't do that, we'll sue you, you're stealing,"......and all under the banner of copyright infringement.
The Internet generation has to stop lumping copyright protection with big business. Big business's job was to exploit copyrights on behalf of the creators that didn't know how to do it themselves. Well they exploited themselves right out of business but you better believe they enjoyed it while it lasted. Now it's over. This is the age of self publishing. Those who publish in this age have to learn to incorporate or refine existing laws to define this era. History shows it's more likely to be done by improving the existing system not by totally destroying the idea born of many generations of shoulder standing.
Yes, it's hard to understand why so many people jump to negativity so quickly when something new is presented. I guess haters are a part of the filter system. Apparently Mike was able to see something Kodak and the vast majority of others didn't see at the time. That's called "vision". We are all capable of "vision" from time to time. Not all of us have the courage and resolve to see the vision through to fruition. It can get a little rough. Do we have what it takes? Time will tell.
I agree, there is nothing new under the sun. There is only those who move on their ideas and those who don't. All ideas are obviously standing on the shoulders of what is already and what came before. The question is, how do persons who have chosen that path sustain a decent living from it? A doctor has man made rules to go by, a bus driver has man made rules to go by....why take away a writer's rules to go by?
The big labels have left a bad taste in most peoples mouth but now we are in a time where writer's are mainly self publishing. Let us build on that. It is a new day. The big labels rule is over....let it go.
I agree, there is nothing new under the sun. There is only those who move on their ideas and those who don't. All ideas are obviously standing on the shoulders of what is already and what came before. The question is, how do persons who have chosen that path sustain a decent living from it? A doctor has man made rules to go by, a bus driver has man made rules to go by....why take away a writer's rules to go by?
The big labels have left a bad taste in most peoples mouth but now we are in a time where writer's are mainly self publishing. Let us build on that. It is a new day. The big labels rule is over....let it go.
I agree, King Lear and other Shakespeare works are great. But so are the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Motown artists, and countless others works. The fact that many labels and middle men abused the privilege of copyright protection doesn't mean the creators of content should be stripped of an important means and reason to invest their time and energy into creating.
It simply means we must refine the system. Fortunately your dialog here is helping to do just that!
The ideas for monetizing music in this NARM video are absolutely brilliant. Another instance of "creative adaptation" of the times. Survival of the fittest. There will be more "creative adaptations" to answer the downfall of the music business's outdated model. That's just the way of the world. P2p is now the will of the people. So be it. That can be monetized as well...through creative adaptation. Options are all good as long as the people have the choices.
That's very funny but true.....if you fixed your fart in form, (recorded etc.) and wanted to enforce your rights. The law would be on your side in that case.
RSS
Twitter
Re: harbinger (as max)
Very good observation except that multimedia is not the only copyrighted materials available on the net. Images, printed publications etc were all available from the start.
Re: (as max)
Since the Library of Congress and Copyright offices are branches of the gov it is more likely that it was a gross oversight. Left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing etc........
Re: Re: lisa (as max)
Yes, the right to assign is fine. Exploitation is fine too = Capitalism. The problem is how to move forward productively based upon the Constitution, which to date is the root equation. That equation starts with the root principle-CREATORS. Once we move ahead you can be sure big business will be back to get those assigns and exploit them as usual. But Congress has no obligation to make laws on behalf of big business, however they ARE obligated to do it for the CREATORS. read the following please........
Rowena, our organization is focused on multimedia via mobile networks as a new revenue stream so we will have a perspective that supports those copyright initiatives going forward. However, you bring up an interesting scenario that can be resolved. The existing business model in the music industry is where the creator/writer/publisher are considered as one. So when a creator signs or shares rights with a publisher they share the revenue generated. The revenue is usually generated from sales/performances of the materials that are usually produced/manufactured by a recording label, (one example of big business is a recording label). The recording label has to pay the creator/writer/publisher a statutory rate for the copyrighted material used in its sound recording. It has been an accepted business practice for recording companies to also have a publishing company. Herein lies the “coerced or forced” scenario. Big business is not doing anything illegal but they use this in the make or break a deal negotiations. They pay publishers the statutory rate mainly because they are at the “collection point of a sale”. In the strategy that we advocate, “the collective” would be at the point of sale and therefore be in a position to pay the statutory rate directly to the creator/publisher and it’s assignees in that order. The assignees could be the recording company, production company and any other participants in the exploitation of the materials. Now this scenario could only work in a situation where a statutory rate was set that would include considerations for assignees, (as datarevenue.org is proposing for mobile networks) but it would be set on behalf of the creator/writer/publisher, not big business. The creator/writer/publisher can make their deal with big business to share in that revenue but won’t have to depend on big business to administrate and/or pay it to them. Please keep in mind that we are only advocating for the future of multimedia via mobile networks as a new revenue stream.
Now, to be included in this futuristic but necessary scenario you as a book/print author would have to find a way to convert your materials to multimedia. There are a number of ways that you may do that but you must think creatively about the options and understand that this would be a new revenue stream and not a replacement for your current model.
lisa (as max)
That is the same preamble in the Constitution that we reference. But did you notice that the Constitution is for the people as individuals NOT big business. Big business legally rode the principles of this as they started their own publishing companies and coerced CREATORS into signing some or all of those CREATOR's rights to them. Which they then exploited. Big business was only doing what businesses do..make money legally anyway they can. But that caused conflict when the gov prematurely unleashed the Internet so now all those copyrights that big business invested in were in jeopardy of NOT making money anymore and so they rose up defensively and turned the Internet generation off. All the time they were dong this they were carrying the banner of CREATOR'S rights and causing confusion upon the Constitutions real intentions, CREATOR'S RIGHTS.
ur exactly right...the middlemen should NOT be involved in setting new policy (as max)
ur exactly right...the middlemen, (BIG BUSINESS) should NOT be involved in setting new policy, they have abused the system and that's why the Internet generation is justified in resenting their efforts to maintain control.
BUT........new revenue streams for creators of songs and similar content should be backed by the government on behalf of creators because that is in the Constitution. And it shouldn’t require that a creator/writer turn into a merchandiser etc. Reasonable use of statutory rates will work fine in the background and the collective can consist of a democratically administrated group representing the members, industries and entities involved.
As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
So, it is the government that should help fix this mess on behalf of CREATORS of copyrighted materials which is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. Although our government may have missed this opportunity via the “first edition” Internet they can get it right this time with the “second edition” Internet - Mobile Networks. After all, in time there will be many more Internet transactions done via mobile networks and devices than tethered Internet transactions. Now’s the time to put these measures in place. Can we get some help? DataRevenue.Org has been unsupported in these efforts and its about time we reached out for help from those that are about actions beyond words. Can you hear us now?
big business has abused the system and the Internet generation is right! (as max)
The Internet generation is right...big business HAS abused the copyright system that was intended for CREATORS. But, new revenue streams for creators of songs and similar content should be backed by the government on behalf of creators because that is in the Constitution. And it shouldn’t require that a creator/writer turn into a merchandiser etc. Reasonable use of statutory rates will work fine in the background and the collective can consist of a democratically administrated group representing the members, industries and entities involved. The CREATOR in this scenario will be at the top of the food chain.
As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that a CREATOR/rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
So, it is the government that should help fix this mess on behalf of creators of copyrighted materials which is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. Although our government may have missed this opportunity via the “first edition” Internet they can get it right this time with the “second edition” Internet - Mobile Networks. After all, in time there will be many more Internet transactions done via mobile networks and devices than tethered Internet transactions. Now’s the time to put these measures in place. Can we get some help? DataRevenue.Org has been unsupported in these efforts and its about time we reached out for help from those that are about actions beyond words. Can you hear us now?
Internet versus Copyrights - a classic conflict of interests (as max)
I used to blame the music industry for being asleep at the wheel when this Internet thing came about.....but now afer much research and soul searching I realize its not really their fault. All businesses affected by digitization had no clue of what was coming. Here's the truth...........
"As the United States Defense Department moved to enable commercialization of the Internet there were meticulous considerations regarding The Domain Name System and related issues. ICANN, a nonprofit organization contracted by The Department of Commerce led the way in the administration and eventual privatization of the Domain system. By most standards this was an excellent model of transitioning from a government entity to privatization. The foresight in understanding the repercussions of NOT having a plan for Domains going forward is highly commendable.
But ironically, that same foresight was grossly absent in considering the repercussions that public use of the Internet would have upon the U.S. copyright system.
If the Betamax Case was a Supreme Court precedent setting event, what in the world were we thinking by unleashing the Internet without addressing the copyright issues beforehand? The Internet coupled with a personal computer is the most powerful copying and publishing mechanism man has ever known!
Therefore, it was the government’s responsibility to ensure that rights holders’ interests were protected before unleashing the greatest copying and publishing mechanism ever and it was the government’s responsibility to insure that ISP’s, (Internet Service Providers), would be in compliance or they would NOT be issued clearance to be an ISP.
Basically, a statutory rate should have been established. Whereas, whenever copyrighted materials were downloaded, (this is a form of distribution and publication), via an ISP the rate would kick in to be deposited with a designated collective that represented the interests of ALL rights holders.
It is my guess that The Library of Congress was not privy to the conversation."
Max Davis - we can fix this for all
good stuff (as max)
Reuters is starting to get it....I luv it....there's always going to be a "next". May as well look for that. It's just a waste of time to look for new ways to keep the old ways.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: King Lear (as max)
I don't think it was very smart for the "industry" or those effected by digitization to try and stop the copying. Had they unified back in the 90's they could have installed a system at the very top, (ISPs) that could have accounted for ALL multimedia activities via the Internet, (instead each entity tried to amend laws particular to themselves). But after 10 years of wasting time trying to stop copying and p2p sharing those old sub-systems of copyright exploitation are struggling to survive.
Re: Re: stop trying to reform psychopaths (as max)
Clarifying: any new systems should be based upon copyright laws......we need a copyright system, so any new systems would actually be sub-systems within the U.S. copyright system which of course can be amended "by the people" if they decide to act, (just talking about it or bad mouthing copyright laws is not productive enough).
Re: stop trying to reform psychopaths (as max)
I agree, these entities are already set in their ways. They will probably implode one day, (from the inside).
In the mean time we need to think ahead with our solutions for the good of the people concerned. As you say here, build on new systems that will make sense 20-50 years from now, (which is about how long the old system was valid).
Re: Re: data revenue (as max)
The Internet generation has to stop lumping copyright protection with big business. Big business's job was to exploit copyrights on behalf of the creators that didn't know how to do it themselves. Well they exploited themselves right out of business but you better believe they enjoyed it while it lasted. Now it's over. This is the age of self publishing. Those who publish in this age have to learn to incorporate or refine existing laws to define this era. History shows it's more likely to be done by improving the existing system NOT by totally destroying the idea born of many generations of shoulder standing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: King Lear (as max)
True...but they don't make sense now because multimedia players did not unite when the Internet was born. It was every man for themselves and the opportunity was missed for positive growth putting them all on the nonproductive defensive for 10 years!
It's no wonder the Internet generation has a negative point of view about copyright protection. All they've heard is "stop it, you can't do this, you can't do that, we'll sue you, you're stealing,"......and all under the banner of copyright infringement.
The Internet generation has to stop lumping copyright protection with big business. Big business's job was to exploit copyrights on behalf of the creators that didn't know how to do it themselves. Well they exploited themselves right out of business but you better believe they enjoyed it while it lasted. Now it's over. This is the age of self publishing. Those who publish in this age have to learn to incorporate or refine existing laws to define this era. History shows it's more likely to be done by improving the existing system not by totally destroying the idea born of many generations of shoulder standing.
Re: Re: I just want to say... (as max)
Yes, it's hard to understand why so many people jump to negativity so quickly when something new is presented. I guess haters are a part of the filter system. Apparently Mike was able to see something Kodak and the vast majority of others didn't see at the time. That's called "vision". We are all capable of "vision" from time to time. Not all of us have the courage and resolve to see the vision through to fruition. It can get a little rough. Do we have what it takes? Time will tell.
Re: Profit (as max)
I agree, there is nothing new under the sun. There is only those who move on their ideas and those who don't. All ideas are obviously standing on the shoulders of what is already and what came before. The question is, how do persons who have chosen that path sustain a decent living from it? A doctor has man made rules to go by, a bus driver has man made rules to go by....why take away a writer's rules to go by?
The big labels have left a bad taste in most peoples mouth but now we are in a time where writer's are mainly self publishing. Let us build on that. It is a new day. The big labels rule is over....let it go.
Re: Re: King Lear (as max)
I agree, there is nothing new under the sun. There is only those who move on their ideas and those who don't. All ideas are obviously standing on the shoulders of what is already and what came before. The question is, how do persons who have chosen that path sustain a decent living from it? A doctor has man made rules to go by, a bus driver has man made rules to go by....why take away a writer's rules to go by?
The big labels have left a bad taste in most peoples mouth but now we are in a time where writer's are mainly self publishing. Let us build on that. It is a new day. The big labels rule is over....let it go.
King Lear (as max)
I agree, King Lear and other Shakespeare works are great. But so are the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Motown artists, and countless others works. The fact that many labels and middle men abused the privilege of copyright protection doesn't mean the creators of content should be stripped of an important means and reason to invest their time and energy into creating.
It simply means we must refine the system. Fortunately your dialog here is helping to do just that!
Re: anonymous (as max)
Huh? It seems you didn't even watch the NARM video before commenting here. C'mon, get real. Don't be posting just to post.
brilliant (as max)
The ideas for monetizing music in this NARM video are absolutely brilliant. Another instance of "creative adaptation" of the times. Survival of the fittest. There will be more "creative adaptations" to answer the downfall of the music business's outdated model. That's just the way of the world. P2p is now the will of the people. So be it. That can be monetized as well...through creative adaptation. Options are all good as long as the people have the choices.
Re: Re: Re: peer2peer (as max)
That's very funny but true.....if you fixed your fart in form, (recorded etc.) and wanted to enforce your rights. The law would be on your side in that case.