|
|
Posted by Bill on 12/13/06 17:11
I didn't say that either.
But I will say this: if you believe in stringent copyright enforcement,
you can't have it both ways. You can't-- morally, if not legally-- let
your video be played 100,000 times because you benefit from the exposure
and then cry, copyright theft and sue the uploader.
You tell me: is that logical? And -- with all due respect again-- can
you answer that question and not some other question that provides a
straw-man argument? Is it logical or moral for copyright owners to
allow their rights to be conspicuously violated and then turn around and
sue the uploader?
Could you at least admit that copyright holders that allow their
material to continue to be played without making any effort to have it
stopped undermine the general idea copyright as it applies to videos and
music? And before anyone tells me that the law doesn't change no matter
how many people disobey it-- fine, I know that. That's not what I said.
I said "undermine the general idea". I think most of us know what is
meant by "general idea".
I anticipate Paul responding that it doesn't matter if Enya benefits
from the endless viewing of her video-- she still has absolute copyright
and property rights and all that. Fine. I grant you that. The
question is, in the minds of the uploading public, does her claim have
that abstract general thing that most people understand as credibility"?
If you don't think that matters, fine. Say so. But don't erect another
strawman argument and please, above all, spare me the assertion that
anything I said can be construed as meaning that I don't think artists
and creators should be paid for their work because I do. I just don't
think the current system does it very efficiently at all.
I apologize if I sound a little curt -- I think I'm just a little
exasperated with an industry that wants to pick and chose how it's
rights are enforced, without any regard for the fact that consumers have
some rights as well.
As I have said many times: if anyone today doesn't like the current
state of the marketplace, they are absolutely free to keep their stuff
out of it. But if they want to benefit from the marketplace, I don't
think they can rightly expect to be able to dictate all of the terms
upon which the entire marketplace, not just their own product, will
operate.
You want to sell your music? You can use a proprietary format that
nobody can copy. How many copies will you sell? Not many. Want to use
the CD format that every consumer expects? Don't do it! Because CD's
can be copied! Got that! So if you really want all the rights you
should have under the law: protect your self and keep your music on some
other format and try to convince consumers-- as you have the right to--
to buy your own proprietary player.
Don't like that idea? Fine-- release it on CD instead and quit whining.
And that really will be my absolutely last word on this thread.
Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Bill" wrote ...
>
>> With all due respect-- and I mean that-- , did you read what I said?
>> Merely that there is a well-known public allegation (by the then
>> attorney general of New York State, Eliot Spitzer) that Sony-BMG and
>> other music companies have been providing radio stations with various
>> "incentives" to play their songs. This is well-documented, in the New
>> York Times. I didn't say what you imply I said-- that Radio stations
>> don't pay to play songs, though clearly I don't think that's pertinent
>> to this issue.
>
>
> Payola as a defense to copyright infringment? You gotta
> be kidding. Unless you're lobbying to actually validate
> two wrongs make a right. Try going for 2 + 2 = 5 while
> you're at it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|