On Wednesday 13 February 2013 11:37:03 Paul Davis wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, drew Roberts <zotz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, drew Roberts <zotz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > One would presumably not release the work to the public until one had > > > > gotten a > > > > fair return on one's labour. > > > > > > that implies only a private audience (and one contract-bound to not > > > > "leak" > > > > > the work) until one reached whatever one deemed a fair return. > > > > Not at all, perhaps we are going to have to go to something like > > kickstarter / > > indiegogo for funding to initial release for some. > > that constitutes a private audience, with the twist that it is an audience > willing to pay for the work even before it is complete. conceptually, this > is no different than the patronage system that has supported artists for > centuries. it is still patronage, but just crowd sourced. Fine, but if it is a way that works and does not require the draconian copyright laws we have today to support the creators, where is the problem with it. > > > Perhaps things will work just fine as they seem to in the fashion > > industry. Casn you speak to this point? > > > > > which in turn implies the notion that to get a larger return requires a > > > public release that (in what I perceive as your worldview) in turn > > > > implies > > > > > abandoment of any ability to restrict access to or use of one's work > > > > (even > > > > > though one might still get paid something for it). > > > > In actuality, one already gives up this ability as can be seen from the > > constant cries of "piracy" killing the industry. > > it is necesssary and important to differentiate between what the law > requires and what technology implies. Don't forget to include what morals / ethics require / permit. > they are quite different. technology > has created the scenario in which digital copying is a fact of life, and we > must all deal with that. copyright (and other related) law did not create > that scenario and at present is powerless to prevent it. And so, let's snoop on everyone 24x7 and put the death penalty on copyright violation in an effort to preserve the old business models. (I know you are not saying this, I am takign it there in this point.) No. It is time to move on and find other funding models or let the arts move to a hobby zone and not a profession zone. Again. If the choice is freedom and democracy vs. copyright law, I know which I prefer. > > > > effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and > > > you expect the public to pay for your work, you must give up any > > > control over your work, in the hope that the public will pay you for it > > > anyway". > > > > Please, this is really not the case. Although it is the fear. > > in your scenario, you cannot release to the public without giving up > control of your work. so how is this not the case? Are you worried about control or possible income? So long as you can make a decent income, why would you insist on control of what others can do with what they hear or purchase? > > > > given that most rich patrons want/need public distribution of the work > > > > you > > > > > do for them (think hollywood), i have a hard time understanding how > > > this > > > > is > > > > > not tantamount to saying "if you want to get paid anything for your > > > work, you must give up all control over it". > > > > Why should it be impossible for a movie to earn back its real costs in > > the opening weekend? > > not the movie! the score, or the costume design, or the FX used in the 7th > scene. did cameron pay me enough for the score before it came out? maybe, > maybe not. Well, why give it to him before he has paid you enough. Why must we limit ourselves to doing business the way we have for the last X years when the world has changed? > but now that the movie is in public release (in your scenario), > i've lost all control over my work, so any income i can derive from it now > is basically fortuitous. > > > Besides, if the only way for the current model to continue is to destroy > > freedom and democracy, I know whcih I want to keep. > > i'm not arguing for the current model. but i'm certainly arguing against a > model where public release implies loss of all control over one's work. Well, I am saying that I prefer no copyright law to what we have today. I am saying that in my lifetime I have only seen things get worse. How would you like to see things change? What is a workable system in your mind? > > --p all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
