OK, I give up on you then. You're just being musically dumb about this now.
>From personal experience, we were sued for making new art out of old and
there were no handcuffs or police at our door, but our creative door on to
the world WAS broken and it ruined our life for about 4 years. It also
eliminated ALL royalties from our existing catelog with our label of that
time TO THIS DAY - 1992 till now! ZERO income from all that past (unsued)
work whatsoever, Dean, though their sale of it continues to this day. This
for doing something that any sane person would consider healthy fair use
benefitting both free expression and the creation of new art, if copyright
was not a broken down bag of art stopping tricks used AGAINST artists as
often as it is used to protect them.
Tell it to George Harrison (who surely understands that everything
influences everything) and who let his influences show just a little too
much once. Tell it to John Fogerty who was not allowed to even be
influenced by HIMSELF (!) after he was sued by Fantasy, and sued again for
being so influenced, as well as being made legally unable to re-perform HIS
OWN EXISTING WORK! Tell it to Michael Bolton, most recently. There are many
many more not famous enough to ever have reached the news threshold, like
the Chambers brothers who we happen to know a lot about but no one else
does. There are a 8 million stories in the naked city.
Labels contractually pirate away copyright ownership from artists and then
use it to NOT pay them, as well as not allowing them to profit from that
existing work by RECREATING it, and it's been going on forever. Copyright
criminalizes all collage, including mere sampling, for all but the already
rich. This prevents new works of transformation, Dean. This prevents all
kinds of grass roots access to commentary, criticism, and parody (the
things fair use supposedly DOES allow) from happening because to do them
requires defending them in expensive copyright courts ANYWAY. The
intimidation factor is huge.
Copyright garners all kinds of UNNECESSARY and UNEARNED tolls on others,
having nothing to do with creating ANYTHING new, that have the same effect.
If copyrights are so irrefutably helpful, why don't they EVER end up
conferring ownership of the work on the artist who created it for life,
giving all such decisions to THEM, and making all others renters of their
work? It's because letting the artist decide things like reuse would be of
no use to music's MANY parasites who have made THEMSELVES the beneficieries
of copyright's many adversarial possibilities. It IS NOT being used
PRIMARILY for the purpose of benefitting the artist, who are so often seen
by owners as just sort of in the way, necessitating an unfortunate split
that when kicking and screamingly required, can be kept to under 10%.
I ain't going on with this today. You are deaf, dumb and blind when it
comes to copyright and its many art-disrespecting misapplications by the
non-artists who wield it for their own extraneous economic benefit. They
have made art into an "exclusive" business of untouchable PRODUCTS instead
of the copycatting and cross-nourishing activity it actually wants and
needs to be for its own good. The invioble sanctity of the "original? Tell
it to the Blues, you silly man.
>Don Joyce wrote:
>> Besides apparently not understanding how everything influences everything,
>> as well as apparently not understanding that art is NOT motivated by
>> copyright, but the other way around, you continue your black & white
>> understanding of copyright itself. Why don't you at least start saying,
>> "SOME aspects of copyright MAY expand the options of creators and other
>> aspects of it MAY close down options and prevent new art from being made."
>> These are the facts and the reality of our present copyright implementation.
>I can't say that, Don, because I simply don't believe it. There is nothing in
>copyright that prevents ANY new art form from being made. Copyright merely
>you the right to do whatever you want with the art you create. The
>you endless new ways of promoting it. You should have the right to get
>what you do - or not get paid - whatever you chose. Without copyright you
>one option. Don't get paid.
>> Copyright needs drastic reform, MANY changes, in order to get the respect
>> from those of us who must actually create under it that it now
>> indescriminently gets from you as it is. Until these changes occur, you
>> will OF COURSE be hearing it dissed constantly. If you really care about
>> its positive aspects, FIX IT, and stop referring to it as if we already
>> have it right.
>Essentially copyright is not broken. I really don't understand the
>you feel copyright has visited upon your life as a creator. The copyright
>don't burst into your studio, handcuff you and drag you off kicking and
>"You naughty creator, you must be punished!"
>On the other hand, copyright allows you to protect your interests, should
>to - ask Michael Bolton - or demand payment, should you wish to - ask Michael
>Look, I have a total understanding of the relationship of technology to
>have every faith that things will eventually work out (sooner rather than
>music will be available freely (not free) on the Net. And, I truly
>the expansive use of music will be good for all creators.
>But, it won't be good for all creators if people follow your lead and
>give up their bargaining chips - or, as in your case, vehemently demand
>own best interests be trashed.
>Copyright is your friend, my friend.
>> >Don Joyce wrote:
>> >> >>>>If we had more principles at the top, perhaps we WOULD have more
>> >> principles at the bottom. At least we could be fair in asking why
>> >> then, it appears to be dog eat dog, self-serving thinking equally at
>> >> both ends.
>> >Irrelevant mindset fostered to festering proportions by anti copyright
>> >forces as
>> >a smoke screen in their quest to weaken copyright protection!
>> >The most important message to disseminate is that in the digital age
>> >deserve to get paid for what they do - if it is their desire to be paid.
>> >The focus should not be on what the major corporations do or don't do, the
>> >should be on the fact that file swapping (aka) trading (aka) steeling
>> >hurts every
>> >creative person from the smallest to the most successful because it
>> >removes their
>> >options to do with their property (and their life) as they see fit.
>> >Creators need to know their options.
>> >Creators need to know that copyright expands those options.
>> >Consumers need to know that without creators being able to envision the
>> >possibility of making a living pursuing their dream there will come a time
>> >there will be nothing new to swap/trade/steel and the world will surely
>> >NOT be a
>> >better place.
>>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>> To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>> request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at
[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.