Pietzki’s Techdirt Profile


About Pietzki

Pietzki’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 30th, 2011 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh wow, there may not be as much investment in art eh?

    So what investment exactly are you talking about? I'm sure that government and community funding for the arts would continue as always, seeing as that's usually not motivated by commercial concerns. Oh, but maybe lady Gaga will have to cut the budget for her shows by what - 10%? In other words by a million or so? What a sad sad day for the arts community!

    In all honesty - I do see your point, but I don't think it's a good one. For one, you say that lack of copyright would turn artistic performances into a hobby rather than a profession, and that artists would only get paid for shows - well guess what? That's just what's involved in making your art into your profession! If you want to make millions of your artwork then you can't expect to write a few songs and live off it for the rest of your life.. Let's put these words into perspective - the big artists (and let's face it - they're the one's who really benefit from the current copyright laws) make millions from each show!

    Less draconian copyright laws will hardly hurt artists trying to make a living, but it will hurt those trying to make millions, and that's why they (and the record labels) are trying their best to hold on to the existing laws.

    And this doesn't just apply to the music industry..

  • Aug 30th, 2011 @ 8:32am

    nice one

    Good onya for having such a balanced attitude about this issue Mike.. I definitely wouldn't be happy about this situation if it was my work being used in this way!

    And in regards to the whole debate that ensued: so the guy may have the right to copyright the compilation under U.S. law - I'm an aussie so I wouldn't know, and really don't care (instert southpark clip here) - but let's just put legality aside for a moment, because nowhere in the article did it say that techdirt was going to sue or even considering suing over this. All the article said was that Mike wasn't exactly happy about Evans attempting to lock down content that wasn't his to begin with. So, it may be legal, but is it fair? After all, the law is ideally supposed to ensure fairness, isn't it?

    (Oh, please do nominate any of the flame-comments below for editor's choice "most insightful comment")