|
|
Posted by AnthonyR on 11/05/05 23:23
"Gary P" <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote in message news:436cfa00$1@127.0.0.1...
> "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MIvaf.23$ek6.10@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>
>> "Steve Guidry" <steveguidry@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:5jvaf.4418$m81.0@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>> Is it copyright law that you don't like?
>>>
>>> It's pretty clear that many folks in this forum don't respect copyright
>>> laws. And also pretty clear that a LOT of them wouldn't agree that
>>> copyright laws are a good thing. Further, it seems to me that which
>>> side of
>>> the copyright issue you're on depends largely upon whether or not the
>>> person
>>> has ever created a copyrighted work.
>
>> Hey Steve,
>
>> But if I were to write a book, I would love for people to BUY it, but
>> more importantly to me, would be for people to read it!
>
> Good point. Look at the abortion that is the art market. Painter does a
> painting to encourage people to see the world in a new way. Possibly
> doesn't sell in his lifetime. Gets sold later at such exorbitant prices
> that only a millionaire can buy it to put in the bathroom of his yacht.
> There's a point where the aims of capital and copyright and the aims of
> art do not coincide at all.
>
Hey Gary,
I never thought about art, thanks... i imagine if music were sold as art is,
one song would sell for millions
of dollars at auction, and only the legal copyright holder would have
permission to own and play that song.
Supply and demand, but people copy art all the time, and only the original
is worth the high bucks.
Sort of this analog and digital thing, since analog copies are never quite
as good as the original the music industry
is fearing the digital copies cause they are exact duplicates of the
original.
It's not the same thing I know, but was fun thinking and comparing the two.
Thanks,
AnthonyR.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|