Am 02.07.2010 00:48, schrieb drew Roberts:
On Thursday 01 July 2010 17:58:17 fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:25:19PM +0100, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
Now, if anyone wants to make money off it, I think Steve has a right
to expect to be given some of that money. (Indeed, one could argue
that if Steve's music helps someone pass the time as they tend their
crops, they have a moral duty to feed him should he turn up on their
doorstep.)
Only Steve ? Or also the musicians who performed for the recording
you listened to while tending your imperfect garden, the sound engineer
who recorded it (and has to pay for his equipment), whoever invested in
whatever infrastructure used to enable you to get a copy of the recording,
etc. etc. ?
Steve's english teachers, maths teachers, music teachers, mother and father?
These people may have helped to develop the needed craft and knowledge
in Steve Reich. And so his way to write music is probably a product of
education, a value developed by many. But all this people did not write
the music for mallets. They did not sit for hundreds of houres fighting
with timings, timbre, harmonics etc etc.Steve Reich did this, he did
this alone and it does not seem odd to me, that he shall have some
control about what is happening with his actual work. Work - as in:
"doing one thing for some time and having no time to do something else
in the same time".
And b.t.w.: I do not think, that the value of a work lies in the
hardship, the worker has to go through. If a punk-band writes a
3-min-song in 1-2 h filled up with beer and without feeling like working
at all it is still the genuine work of individuals that should be respected.
Of course Mr. Reich has no patent on writing music his way. Everybody is
free to study the music and to develop new pieces of minimal music in
the style of Steve Reich.
Ideas shall be free and in music they are actually. Actual work shall be
attributed and the person, who did the work shall get a
compensation/reward for the work. If an artist/worker decides, to
licence his/her work CC BY, then it is his/her decision, I would choose
CC BY SA and in most cases CC BY SA NC.
But by and large we all agree that freedom of expression is
a basic human right
I fail to see the relation between making a copy of some artist's
work for your own use, and 'freedom of expression'.
Copyright tends to cover the making of derivatives (freedom of expression /
speech could enter here) and distribution as well as the making of copies.
Caio,
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
