Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
1. artists that use permissive licensing as a way to compete better
2. groups that want to abolish copyright to avoid paying for the work of artists
But you have left out a possible third, more radical group:
3. artists that want to abolish copyright to avoid complications when they sell their services
Posted Jun 25, 2010 23:42 UTC (Fri) by stumbles (guest, #8796)
Posted Jun 26, 2010 1:11 UTC (Sat) by ewan (subscriber, #5533)
Posted Jun 26, 2010 12:34 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
Now, I happen to like certain types of red tape. I don't think you /should/ be able to roll up on the big common in my city with trucks full of audio gear and put on a free concert with no crowd control, no police awareness, no first aid crew, etc.
But the copyright red tape means a local venue may refuse to play your music solely because they're afraid of the bureaucracy. They've been told they have to pay a fee to the racketeer to play music, and they don't want to do that, and they can't take your word for it that this is an exception.
Worse, copyright red tape means artists whose work is derivative of other copyrighted works (which is basically everybody) must constantly fear consequences for the perfectly normal cultural borrowing that occurs. If I hear someone whistling and unconsciously introduce their tune into a new piece of music, I may find myself sued for "stealing" from a band I've never heard of. If I want to criticise The Mouse through parody I should hire a lawyer to make sure what I'm doing is bomb proof legally or Mickey's lawyers will shut me down. More red tape.
So yes, there are reasonable people who create music and long for copyright to be universally appealed, just as there are people who create software and long for copyright to be universally appealed.
NB In many countries "copyright" and "the moral rights of the author" (notably, to be acknowledged as creator of the work) are separate, and few if any object to the latter.
Posted Jun 26, 2010 12:36 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
Posted Jun 27, 2010 22:03 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433)
Posted Jun 27, 2010 23:02 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Also, Shakespeare was a myth.
Posted Jun 28, 2010 7:47 UTC (Mon) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Posted Jun 28, 2010 13:31 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
Posted Jun 29, 2010 15:17 UTC (Tue) by Hanno (guest, #41730)
Posted Jun 29, 2010 16:45 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Copyright really will never expire as long as these people have a say in it.
Posted Jul 3, 2010 5:06 UTC (Sat) by pjm (subscriber, #2080)
Stallman would presumably say that the wrong is not that you have to pay to get a copy of the music, but that (depending on the license the printer grants) you're forbidden from sharing the music.
As with software, it's very difficult to get the law changed, and it's hard to know what the overall effect on society a given change would have.
If you want to be free to copy or perform music or software, then the practical solution is the same as with software and books: copy a 19th century score yourself (or compose music yourself), make it freely available to others, and encourage others to do the same. If Project Gutenberg and similar projects are practical, then musical equivalents should be all the more so.
Posted Jul 7, 2010 15:31 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds