The Dink Network

Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright

If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Username:
Password:
Subject:
Antispam: Enter Dink Smallwood's last name (surname) below.
Formatting: :) :( ;( :P ;) :D >( : :s :O evil cat blood
Bold font Italic font hyperlink Code tags
Message:
 
 
January 8th 2016, 10:11 PM
peasantm.gif
shevek
Peasant They/Them Netherlands
Never be afraid to ask, but don't demand an answer 
Thanks for your reply.

Your description of copyright doesn't entirely match the law as I understand it, but it's probably close enough. The main difference is that you talk about intent, while the law (AFAIK) doesn't; the copyright holder has the right to restrict making copies (including performances), no questions asked. The copyright holder doesn't need to justify why person A is allowed to make copies and person B isn't. (Also, making copies for personal use is not covered by the law, and is therefore always allowed, but let's ignore that.)

if a value is realized from the use of my work, I should be compensated.
That sounds reasonable to me. But it isn't how it works now; if I want to make copies of your work without making money (for me or anyone down the line), I need permission from you. Would you be in favor of changing that, so non-commercial use is no longer covered by copyright (and therefore always allowed)?

if I write a song that is used in an advertising campaign which generates an increase in revenue, I am entitled to receive a portion of that increase in revenue. The math is beyond the scope of this posting.
I don't think the math should be in the law. It is perfectly reasonable to leave that to the artist, as it is now: you need to make a deal with the artist, and if you can't work it out, you can't use the work.