|
|
Posted by Gordon Sande on 02/09/07 02:41
On 2007-02-08 19:46:43 -0400, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> said:
> In article <eqg4e1$umh$1@aioe.org>, nospam <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> Gordon Sande wrote:
>>
>>> The "defacto copyright infringement encouragers" scared the wits
>>> out of the music business. Piracy is the symptom of the "defacto
>>> copyright infringement encouragers". Most of their music material
>>> is from CDs that has no protection at any stage. Eventually the
>>> "defacto copyright infringement encouragers" will have to be
>>> discouraged. The problem is how to effect that behaviour change
>>> with the music business still badly spooked.
>>
>> I think the xhange has to be more fundamental than that. If artists
>> were known to be getting just rewards from their music via sales then
>> it would not be 'cool' to give copies of that music to others. It's
>> only becuase so many people know what a bunch of shysters the big
>> labels are that it is socially acceptable.
Then why are the Beatles so interested in suing Apple all the time?
Free downloads are just cheap advertising. Not all advertising comes
at the bargain price.
> It's not merely the recording industry, it's the publishing industry in
> general. I looked into publishing some theoretical psychology
> literature I had written. The journal required that I sign my copyright
> over to them, waive all future claim to fees, etc. This is pretty much
> standard procedure for the scientific publishing world- which then turns
> around and charges $25 per copy for the journal and $10-25 for a reprint
> of an article! (I will grant, however, that most scientific journals
> have a circulation of hundreds or maybe thousands, so these companies
> are not exactly getting rich off a single journal. _Science_ and
> _Nature_ are huge exceptions in terms of circulation).
Science is published by a professional association so its practices
can hardly be used to denounce a money grabbing publishing company.
Other scientific societies are much the same. A common practice for some
is to basically go free after five years. Timeliness is the value being
charged for in addition to the other services the journal provides.
> The laws were basically written by the publishing industry to protect
> the publishing industry, and offer little protection for the people who
> actually *create* the content.
>
> Once upon a time we needed the publishing industry. That has changed
> thanks to the Internet, where any yahoo like me can publish original
> content and not have to share a dime or sign away copyright to a bunch
> of suits.
There may be "abuses" when there are too few channels. But equally when
there are too many channels the gatekeeper or selector has a lot of
value. The gatekeeper also provides archival and other services beyond
just the publication today. Valuing those services at zero by pervasive
piracy will prove to be undesirable in the long run when the services
are not there.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|