Now Dunderdale is claiming that it's because Rogers "has chosen to remain a part of a group that has allowed many violent and threatening comments," Sadly, it probably won't even effect her position. When it comes to politics I think that we Canadians are just too stupid for words.
I'm not really against copyright, but these types of massive abuse make it difficult to support. Even in the unlikely event that the copyright maximalists are right they are wrong. To put it bluntly I would rather live in a world with happy people and no art, then one with oppressed freedoms and tons of (unappreciated) art. Not that an oppressed population are capable of supporting artists.
Creativity and creators (and their products) become completely worthless if the bulk of the population is uneducated, unenlightened, and poor. It is only of value so long as the population can consume it. Yet here we have a group which claims to represent those creators acting in a manner which will ultimately act to reduce that consumption, thus also reducing the income of those artists they claim to represent.
Ah, that would explain the seeming contradiction. Thank you for clarifying.
I think the reason writers have fared better than musicians is that writers can actually read and usually know what they are signing.
Very likely. I also have never heard of a writer dying penniless, although it's bound to have happened somewhere. Also, writers don't usually live such flamboyant life styles, and are better at managing their money - again, the result of a better education.
Yes, the ability to self publish has certainly made a difference. I do know of at least one person who refused to sell his rights and ended up unable to publish, but that was long before the internet, back when self publishing was exorbitantly expensive.
That's interesting. I know several authors, and have closely followed the careers of others, yet I have never heard of a new writer getting an advance. Of course most of these people started more then 30 years ago so perhaps it is simply a matter of changing policies. But I also find it difficult to believe that any business would hand out $500,000 to a complete stranger without at least having some sort of evidence of their skill.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How the water company should've handle this
When I was looking for a potential mate I always started with the eyes. If I didn't like the eyes that was the end. The other requirement was intelligence, but interestingly I never have met a stupid person with what I consider attractive eyes.
As a result I may have missed out on a lot of dates with attractive and stupid people, but that's okay. I choose very wisely and don't have any regrets. :)
But I do understand your point, and it is all too true in general.
Unfortunately those numbers are very misleading. They represent only a very few high-profile writers. 'Most' writers received little or no payment upfront. Also, 'most' writers started out by writing on their own time and then finding a publisher willing to print the book. And even if the publisher liked their work it wasn't going to get printed unless they sold the copyright. Permanently. Following which the publisher was still not obligated to actually print the book; sometimes books would sit on the shelf for a long time while the author waited hungrily for his percentage. And the writers didn't DARE bitch or their book might be pulled from production and they might be left to starve (especially if they had signed a contract which restricted them from selling their work to any other publisher). Those few who did become popular enough to qualify for advances still had to keep writing because - just like the movie and music industries - that advance plus all expenses were taken from their percentage.
I am referring to people and agencies like Prenda. I believe they would throw together semi-legal, cheap, disposable sweat shops and as soon as they spotted someone trying to get funding for something new would crowd the market with cheap imitations. If they jump on it quick enough no one will be able to figure out which is the original and not only would they profit from the work of others, but the creator could easily be pushed right out of the market. The creator could even end up with an undeserved bad reputation.
Requiring all products/productions to display due credit for work done would help reduce this, but copyrights/patents are easily the simplest way to really limit the problem. Although I don't believe they should be as vague as they are now. I would be content with requiring only a modest modification (though I don't know how that would work with books).
I also believe the creator should be given first opportunity at a profit, and that means making a time allowance for them to obtain production funds and/or build a reputation. Four to seven years should be plenty. And only applied to original works, not those of a derivative nature.
Most of the above are moral issues rather then market ones, and it is entirely possible that my beliefs are wrong. In the distant past everyone was a content creator to some extent with things like customized art work, hand-made tools, and families singing together. That faded away for a time when the rich became too rich and the poor were too busy struggling for survival to sing or carve or paint. For a time only people who were actually paid to do so had time to spend creating, and an entire industry built up around that idea. Today robots, computers, and the internet give people more free time, but the public no longer knows how to be creative. Fortunately platforms like Kickstarter allow us to support those who do. Perhaps with the IP walls removed the market would be so flooded with new start-ups that such 'evil' agencies would be squeezed out. And quite honestly my _biggest_ objection to them is not over the profit, but because I personally despise their arrogance and lack of morals.
Of course these are all opinions, and as I said, I am also viewing it with an eye toward a compromise that would better serve me. The only way to know the effects for certain would be to actually try such a system out. So far the closest we can get is probably Hong Kong, and even there IP law does exist and does impact the market, even if it is more often ignored then respected. The surprisingly healthy and robust content industry there suggests that even reduced enforcement is beneficial.
Good grief, I only meant to answer your question, not write a bloody book! Oh well, there you have it.
Re: Re: How the water company should've handle this
I did a stint as a technician and dealt with the same thing. I had one customer who would call at least four times a week needing us to come over and either unjam or reload their tractor feed printer. That particular customer was a secretarial school.
If only their were a way to isolate these people and prevent them from breeding.
I have absolutely no question in my mind that they have willfully committed criminal actions. Perhaps they have finally decided to simply shut up since anything they say could lead to an easier conviction.
As it stands that conviction currently depends on the outcome of an investigation, and unfortunately the DOJ will not take this very seriously since no large corporations were affected.
It sucks, but they may even end up getting away with most of their crimes. Again I must emphasize that the only people harmed by their actions were ordinary citizens, whose well being do not hold much weight. Recent history has repeatedly shown substantial legal favoritism for the rights of the corporation over those of the individual. Cynical as that may sound it is also the sad reality.
Still, it's been a lot of fun watching this all unfold, and watching the bad guys suffer even a little. Justice may be an illusion, but it's a nice illusion. :)