torrentfreak.com — Morals are often defined by what the general public sees as right or wrong. Most people don’t feel that they’re doing wrong when they download an MP3 or share a movie, but in most countries they are actually breaking laws, laws which do not reflect what the general public considers to be legal, fair use, or even moral.
Dec 23, 2007 View in Crawl 4
juanchopanzaDec 24, 2007
Clearly, the laws on copywrite in the U.S. and elsewhere are not the "will of the people". They are the "will of business" as substantiated by friendly legislatures and courts. The people wouldn't give away such largess. Almost any copywriten work of music today would be illegal if the same rule of authorship was applied to their work as they expect their work will receive. How many snippets of Bach, Brahms, medieval chants, etc are embedded in modern music? Everything that can be scored, has been sometime in the past. Artists? Oh, yes, commercial entities with a yen for special status. Someone define for me how "art" has anything to do with this.We are living in the shadowlands. The world has changed, but institutions, laws and old interests don't want to recognize it. Instead of riding the wave, they're hunkering down on the building surf and waiting for the big one. Let them shiver!! People like that will paddle back into shore at the end of the day and declare it a great day surfing.This isn't about morals, legality or rights. It's about a public that is setting the standards for viability of music, tv, and movies. The end will be better art, more creativity and the weeding out of plastic music (you know what I'm talking about Ruben!). Writer's striking for residuals. It's an anachronism and another evidence that unions really screw their constituents. They should be striking for more openness. Don't ya know that the film directors for all of those 2008 movies that aren't already in the can are going home and having their 14 year olds write revisions to their scripts. You know, it's going to be OK.Feliz Navidad!
Closed AccountDec 25, 2007
stupid analogy
brianaryJan 2, 2008
Why should music, et al., be profitable?"...before it's culturally too late."WTF? Have you looked at our culture? Profitable culture is crap: reality shows, corporate rock, manufactured boy bands, product placement, brain-dead sitcoms, etc., etc., etc.
wartzJan 3, 2008
Youtube gives terrible quality and often there are sections missing.
hyperion1144Feb 12, 2008
You clearly do not know the difference between "Marginal Cost," "Nominal Cost," and "Real Cost." There are very big differences between these things. "Marginal Cost = Zero" does NOT MEAN that it costs nothing to create music. Of course it costs money to produce and record music!Marginal cost is the cost to create ONE MORE of anything. The business model of chip-maker like Intel is based on this! It costs billions of dollars to make the 1st chip, and a few dollars to make copies of it. You turn a profit by making a lot of chips to make up for the cost of the 1st super-expensive one.Problem is, making ONE MORE of a song is now free or virtually so. It costs as much as it costs to copy a file (making ONE MORE of something). Peel your dumb ass off of your chair, find an econ professor, and ask him or her what must happen to price in a perfectly competitive marketplace when Marginal Cost = Zero.Go ahead. Check me. I've studied Econ. Have you????