“Hmm.. I did hear of those guys, yes. Times do change, see.”

but the changes don’t support the need for copy protection laws.

“His works were comissioned for performances. He didn’t record music that anyone could play and benefit from. He had the control over the use of his work and he was payed for performances of it. No need for copyright there”

and if it weren’t for those who go around suing various venues with live performers under the pretext that someone might infringe, no one is stopping artists from playing music for commission today either.

“You can only own a perfect Rembrandt if you buy the original (A Woman Weeping – measly $500,000). Replicating it to a perfect copy requires a bit more then internet xs, PC and a USB key.”

By the time Rembrandt was famous enough to have an original worth so much he had already created many works to allow others to get to know his work. If an artist today gains a reputation so that people value his work, there is no reason why he can’t create a new piece of work and sell a perfect piece to a specific venue ahead of time and simply not release it to anyone to copy. The only way for others to get a perfect copy would be to get it from the first person who buys it and they have incentive not to give it away. Sure, others can bring in recording devices, but that hardly creates perfect copies that other venues can use. One again, your example is flawed.

“Beethoven offered noble patrons an exclusive right to use important pieces for a period of six to twelve months in exchange for payment before these compositions went to press. “

Again, no one is saying that artists aren’t allowed to offer patrons exclusive rights to use perfect replications of important pieces in exchange for money. Copy”right” isn’t needed for that. But once the piece of art goes to press (ie: released on CD or whatever) people should be free to make perfect copies, it’s my right.

“We can see the modern copyright legislation come to life right there as Beethoven lost complete control over use of his works.”

No one deserves complete control over their works. If copy”right” is to exist it should exist to the benefit of the public. It should be an agreement between the public and the artist where both mutually benefit. The current system is no such thing. Complete control over ones work is not a mutual trade, it’s the public simply giving away all of their rights to the maximum possible benefit of the IP holder. I agree to no such thing. The public has no obligation to agree make any agreements whatsoever, it’s my right to freely copy what I please. If these laws are to exist they should only exist to the benefit of the public. It’s a good thing Beethoven lost complete control over his works, as a result we still have his works today. Otherwise, his works might have been lost in history due to copy”right” laws that shouldn’t exist, like so many works of the past century.

“Publishers made a lot of money with later prints of Beethoven’s work, yet the renumerations Beethoven recieved from them never were an important part of his income.”

So what?

“You can’t say musicians are better off these days.”

If it’s true, why not?

“Not as long as the studies you quote as proof, compensate losses in sales with income from the copyright.”

What quoted studies have done such a thing? and how can copyright income compensate anything if there are no sales?

“None of you sent flowers to his wife?”

To say that artists are better off is not to say that all artists are better off. Sure, some are worse off, being they have more competition.

“Its awful to put up with them, but it would be even worse without them.”

How is this so?

“Its awful to put up with them, but it would be even worse without them.”

How is this so? Are you only saying that because you benefit from the existence of gatekeepers? More than likely.

The problem is the gatekeepers. The government wrongfully gives them monopoly power over information distribution channels and they abuse their monopoly power to only benefit themselves. That’s wrong. Things like public airwaves either need to be open for the public to freely use or they should be only allocated in the public interest. and gatekeepers that prevent restaurants and other venues from playing independent music without paying the gatekeepers unnecessary fees do no one, besides themselves, any favors. They’re not needed.

“Through the concept of “equitable remuneration”. Price of the artistic work is not fixed, when it comes to public use, but rather formed as part of the content providers income. That means that every radio station gets the right to play any song, regardless of their market success. They will only pay a part of their income in the end. Thats how diversity is generated. Without the equitable remuneration, less commercial radio stations couldn’t afford to play music for specific interrest groups at minimum revenue.”

So you’re saying that because radio stations must pay to play music they could now afford to have fewer commercials?

“Monopoly makes life far more simple for content providers and far more complicated for content creators. I suspect thats the idea behind it. While creators don’t retain individual control over the use of their work, content providers get “one stop shops” to clear the rights for all works they use, without any limitations. Plus, they get to complain about the insignificant sums they are forced to pay.”

So only the IP holders benefit, not the creators. Yes, that’s the idea, to benefit the otherwise unnecessary middlemen. and the middlemen only pay insignificant sums to the artists and so everyone besides the middlemen loses. Lets abolish these laws, they’re not necessary and never were.

“Really? Most artists don’t share such hugh opinion on “derivative works” with you.Plagiarism comes to mind. Besides. Most CC works hamper artistic production in the same way.”

[citation needed]

“45K free downloads since July 2009?”

and so content is created despite being released under licenses designed to, at least to some extent, circumvent copy protection laws.

“No legal airplay, because of CC limitations?”

and many on Techdirt disagree with the non-commercial use CC licenses, but it’s copyright that permits that.

“You have to be careful when you call something like that a viable business model.”

Music was created and the public was served, despite licenses designed to circumvent copy protection laws. This suggests that these laws aren’t needed.

“I would expect you to get a really good overview of its market impact, value and profits it generates compare to investments. “

The laws shouldn’t exist to help anyone make profits. The whole purpose of having an economy to begin with should is the production of goods and services. Music was created and the public was served. Profits is only secondary if even a concern at all.