There is such a thing as right and wrong, too bad so many don't believe that anymore.
Good thing you're here to tell us which is which. I think people should be able to make their own moral decisions. The gambling is going to happen so lets make efforts to keep it clean instead of ignoring it.
I've done some freelance photography, including my sisters wedding. In trying to get the shot I always distance myself from an event. My photos may let other people relive the experience but I missed it altogether. More recently at my son's first birthday I decided to never pick up the camera. I enjoyed myself tremendously and was part of the whole event. In trying to document an event I take on far too technical a mindset to enjoy the moment. My wife and I have agreed that instead of documenting a few "special moments" we will work constantly to stay engaged in the present and make every moment special.
Copyright protection does not equal free market. It is closer to the opposite.
"And lastly, why do you or anyone else care so much what someone makes from their creation after the passage of a certain amount of time?"
I'm not against the artist making money after a certain amount of time. I'm for being able to use the works to further innovate and create new products.
"The way you say this is so innocent, like someone saying "it's for the general welfare". Again, that's very dangerous, and completely the opposite of saying what you started out with"
Yes, it is somewhat innocent but it isn't opposite my previous statement. It simply addresses different issues.
"we as the great government body will take your work and allow other people to have it free of charge,"
The government is not taking your work away. Ending copyright protection is actually decreasing government intervention and protection. Copyright is not an inherent right that governments must step on to eradicate but is a government granted right to protect the artist's interests and promote creation of new material.
"Why should anyone else have the right to take something from you that you created and let people have it for free without your consent?"
They aren't taking anything from me, I'm giving it to them. It's the government's intervention that doesn't allow them to use it how they wish. If I don't want people to have it I should never have performed it publicly.
"So again, you think that other people should be able to determine the worth of someone's work?"
It is always other people that determine the worth of someones work. That is how a free market functions, your able to charge what people are willing to pay.
I don't think that anyone is saying that artists shouldn't be paid for their work, but they should continue to work for payment. If their song is truly so great people will be willing to pay for them to perform it as opposed to other people copying. They might also pay for personal appearances and other things that can't be copied by others.
Allowing works to go to the public domain greatly increases the worth to the public. Other people are be able to work with it, interpret it and use it in ways the original artist hadn't thought of. All this can also increase the value of the work to the original artist by generating interest in their current work.
I work in a creative profession and feel I have an inkling of how creative people think. I don't work here because of great pay (it's not) I work here becuase it's what I would be doing whether or not I was getting paid. If I created something that was wildly popular now, great! If I have nothing new to offer 50 years down the road I would be ashamed to still be milking that old creation while not making use of it myself.
Lastly, we aren't specifically talking about music but about copyright which applies to many things.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Leo.
Re:
There is such a thing as right and wrong, too bad so many don't believe that anymore.
Good thing you're here to tell us which is which. I think people should be able to make their own moral decisions. The gambling is going to happen so lets make efforts to keep it clean instead of ignoring it.
Magic gets lost
I've done some freelance photography, including my sisters wedding. In trying to get the shot I always distance myself from an event. My photos may let other people relive the experience but I missed it altogether. More recently at my son's first birthday I decided to never pick up the camera. I enjoyed myself tremendously and was part of the whole event. In trying to document an event I take on far too technical a mindset to enjoy the moment. My wife and I have agreed that instead of documenting a few "special moments" we will work constantly to stay engaged in the present and make every moment special.
Re: Not just blind people
> A car one or two spaces in front of you starts their engine and starts backing out
Yes, this could be a problem. Maybe they could put some lights on the back of the car that will turn on when you start the car or put it in reverse.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why not just let the free market be"
Copyright protection does not equal free market. It is closer to the opposite.
"And lastly, why do you or anyone else care so much what someone makes from their creation after the passage of a certain amount of time?"
I'm not against the artist making money after a certain amount of time. I'm for being able to use the works to further innovate and create new products.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright debate
"The way you say this is so innocent, like someone saying "it's for the general welfare". Again, that's very dangerous, and completely the opposite of saying what you started out with"
Yes, it is somewhat innocent but it isn't opposite my previous statement. It simply addresses different issues.
"we as the great government body will take your work and allow other people to have it free of charge,"
The government is not taking your work away. Ending copyright protection is actually decreasing government intervention and protection. Copyright is not an inherent right that governments must step on to eradicate but is a government granted right to protect the artist's interests and promote creation of new material.
"Why should anyone else have the right to take something from you that you created and let people have it for free without your consent?"
They aren't taking anything from me, I'm giving it to them. It's the government's intervention that doesn't allow them to use it how they wish. If I don't want people to have it I should never have performed it publicly.
Re: Re: Re: Copyright debate
"So again, you think that other people should be able to determine the worth of someone's work?"
It is always other people that determine the worth of someones work. That is how a free market functions, your able to charge what people are willing to pay.
I don't think that anyone is saying that artists shouldn't be paid for their work, but they should continue to work for payment. If their song is truly so great people will be willing to pay for them to perform it as opposed to other people copying. They might also pay for personal appearances and other things that can't be copied by others.
Allowing works to go to the public domain greatly increases the worth to the public. Other people are be able to work with it, interpret it and use it in ways the original artist hadn't thought of. All this can also increase the value of the work to the original artist by generating interest in their current work.
I work in a creative profession and feel I have an inkling of how creative people think. I don't work here because of great pay (it's not) I work here becuase it's what I would be doing whether or not I was getting paid. If I created something that was wildly popular now, great! If I have nothing new to offer 50 years down the road I would be ashamed to still be milking that old creation while not making use of it myself.
Lastly, we aren't specifically talking about music but about copyright which applies to many things.