Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Copyright:
you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices
That's not what I understood. Do you have a link to the part of the law this is in, so I can read it?
There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy.
I don't think that's the reason. As far as I heard, it's because the assumption is that people will make copies from things they don't own. Which brings up an interesting question: if I'm paying for making that copy, does that make it legal? I think it should. But I don't think it does. It's really just a way to extract money from people. Especially given that most people who still use CDs that I know are using them for backing up research data or something like that; it has nothing to do with music, still they are paying the "tax".
His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views
You seem to make the same mistake that the record labels often make (but they do it on purpose, I hope you don't): they suggest that every person who was interested enough to make a copy of a song (at zero cost) would have been interested enough to buy the CD. These numbers cannot be compared (except to find out if there is a ratio between them that is semi-constant; I have no idea if there is).
I understand and agree with your points on record companies.
Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of music, which would allow us to compose and perform for the sake of self achievement
Yes, that would be nice. To me, copyright just feels wrong as a principle. I understand how the rules work, but I look at them from a different perspective:
Without the law, everyone would be able (and allowed) to make as many copies as they want of anything that they have. Copyright was created for a specific purpose. There are different reasons for different countries. One is that the creators deserve profit from their work. Another (that was cited by the founding fathers in the US) is that the public benefits from having more productive artists.
I like that second reason: it says that having a lot of art in the public domain is the goal. In order to reach that goal, for a limited time, the people give up their natural right to make copies. This allows artists to make more money, so they will make more art.
This trade should be reevaluated now that making copies has effectively become a zero-cost operation. There is a big difference between paying a tax on a purchase and paying it on doing something trivial. Given that lots of people like making art so much that they do it without compensation, I think it makes sense to rethink this deal where people give up their rights; there doesn't seem to be much value in it anymore. In fact, copyright seems to stand in the way of a lot of art. For example, George Lucas is known for suing people who make Star Wars fan art.
On the other hand, I think you make a reasonable point that if someone makes money with your art, you deserve to get a part of that money. Then again, what if artists are compensated for their work in some other way (in particular, not by counting users), and then the art is in the public domain and anyone may use it for any purpose? I think that would be a very nice society to live in.
I doubt this will change substantially in my lifetime.
In Finland they seem to be implementing a Basic Income. That would be a good start. So it may not be as distant as you think.
you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices
That's not what I understood. Do you have a link to the part of the law this is in, so I can read it?
There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy.
I don't think that's the reason. As far as I heard, it's because the assumption is that people will make copies from things they don't own. Which brings up an interesting question: if I'm paying for making that copy, does that make it legal? I think it should. But I don't think it does. It's really just a way to extract money from people. Especially given that most people who still use CDs that I know are using them for backing up research data or something like that; it has nothing to do with music, still they are paying the "tax".
His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views
You seem to make the same mistake that the record labels often make (but they do it on purpose, I hope you don't): they suggest that every person who was interested enough to make a copy of a song (at zero cost) would have been interested enough to buy the CD. These numbers cannot be compared (except to find out if there is a ratio between them that is semi-constant; I have no idea if there is).
I understand and agree with your points on record companies.
Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of music, which would allow us to compose and perform for the sake of self achievement
Yes, that would be nice. To me, copyright just feels wrong as a principle. I understand how the rules work, but I look at them from a different perspective:
Without the law, everyone would be able (and allowed) to make as many copies as they want of anything that they have. Copyright was created for a specific purpose. There are different reasons for different countries. One is that the creators deserve profit from their work. Another (that was cited by the founding fathers in the US) is that the public benefits from having more productive artists.
I like that second reason: it says that having a lot of art in the public domain is the goal. In order to reach that goal, for a limited time, the people give up their natural right to make copies. This allows artists to make more money, so they will make more art.
This trade should be reevaluated now that making copies has effectively become a zero-cost operation. There is a big difference between paying a tax on a purchase and paying it on doing something trivial. Given that lots of people like making art so much that they do it without compensation, I think it makes sense to rethink this deal where people give up their rights; there doesn't seem to be much value in it anymore. In fact, copyright seems to stand in the way of a lot of art. For example, George Lucas is known for suing people who make Star Wars fan art.
On the other hand, I think you make a reasonable point that if someone makes money with your art, you deserve to get a part of that money. Then again, what if artists are compensated for their work in some other way (in particular, not by counting users), and then the art is in the public domain and anyone may use it for any purpose? I think that would be a very nice society to live in.
I doubt this will change substantially in my lifetime.
In Finland they seem to be implementing a Basic Income. That would be a good start. So it may not be as distant as you think.
