Posted by Tim McNamara on 02/08/07 23:46

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.

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).

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.

[Back to original message]