> eers.org> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > What is stopping an artist purchasing a copy of the recording that was > made > > of their performance, manufacturing copies of it and then selling those > > copies? > > > > Don't forget, the recording is by no means equivalent to the live > > performance. > > > > An artist also has equal (if not more) opportunity than anyone else to > > record their own performances. > > > > It is not technology that is necessarily culpable for any displacement, > but > > unequal access to it. That may well have long been a case of the haves vs > > the have nots, but there are a hell of a lot of haves these days when it > > comes to recording, distribution and publishing. > > > > The key remaining inequality is the mercantile privilege of copyright - > > designed for the haves (in terms of lobbying power and legal resources). > > > > There is only one force in this world mighty enough to take on the > recording > > industry (whilst they still have power), and that is the people. > > > > If you transfer your copyright to the people, they will protect it and > > fiercly counter any corporation who dares appropriate it. > > > > That means artists should stop putting barbed wire around their art to > > preserve the ability for record labels to monopolise it in the future - > > labels pay a pittance for the privilege anyway (for those artists who > don't > > end up in debt to them). > > > > And until an artist is as rich as Cliff, they have no power to exploit > their > > notional monopoly without a label. > > > > So, let's help persuade artists to stop kidding themselves that they can > be > > their own labels and make monopoly money. > > > > An artist should sell their art to their audience with no monopoly > retained. > > CC-NC is a Naive Con. > > > > One can suggest using a copyleft licence such as CC-SA if there's doubt > > concerning the ability of the people to otherwise protect their > intellectual > > property. > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: Eliot P. [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2007 5:13am > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [FC-discuss] Transcended Value in Recording Industry > > > > > > A major issue in intellectual property is common depreciation. What is > > that? Well on one hand, the profit of a real estate investment, is not > > taxed as highly because the value of the property is depreciated. It > > doesn't matter whether the property is old or new.. That makes this a > maor > > income generating opportunity for real estate owners. They can withdraw > > money since their tax is minimal. But being a rock star is not like being > a > > real estater. Believe me, I know all about rock music. > > > > OK so when I go to do rock star work, my work has some value, but there > are > > also costs. Now what if I say that I can rock twice for the same cost.. > No > > that is not true. I can not double rock and roll. > > > > But if I have cash to invest, in rock stars, then what I can do is invest > > for a higher interest. I ell that rock star he has to rock for my money, > or > > I will put a lien on that guitar and drums till he pays off. He tells me > > some sad story, I can' rock but once, eh. > > > > So I get the tape recorder, and come over to the concert. I record the > > concert and now I can double the investment and make twice as much. I > keep > > all of that money. He says I want some of that money. But it was the > tape > > recorder that I used. He can't rock it more than once. And so most > > technology displaces people . That is a transcendence of their value > within > > an open system where they are not getting feedback and control. In a > closed > > system they would have gotten feedback and would not rock wher there was a > > tape recorder. Since that technology is going to cost them money. that > is > > what happens with technology and investment. It tends to transcend the > > stabiliy and speeds thing up. hat happens to everybody. Investment > > requires interest must be paid, while the worker is offered a conditional > > employment depending upon his usefulness. But I can still rock and roll.. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20071028/f1c9de55/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:20:22 -0400 > > From: "Fred Benenson" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Transcended Value in Recording Industry > > To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in > > particular" <[email protected]> > > Message-ID: > > <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > I'm not sure how depreciation would fare in "intellectual property" > because > > it's really just a device to leverage tax incentives and extract value > from > > real estate that depends on the reality that physical objects break and > > degrade in quality. > > > > If what you're suggesting is that more artists take advantage of this > > maneuver in the realm of music and art, then I think you're committing > the > > fairly common fallacy of equating physical property with creative works. > > The reason why depreciation won't work for creative works is because they > > don't actually depreciate in physical value -- a song's copyright is no > less > > "useful" in its state 20 years after it's useful than it is at the time of > > its creation. I suppose there's an argument for notion that copyrights > > dilute over time as a matter of fashion and taste (while most ragtime is > > copyrighted, much fewer of those works are as valuable as they were at the > > time of their creation due to the popular taste of music consumers -- > > apologies to any ragtime fans on this list) this seems a odd and difficult > > factor for the law to account for. > > > > IANAL, > > > > > > F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/28/07, Eliot P. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A major issue in intellectual property is common depreciation. What is > > > that? Well on one hand, the profit of a real estate investment, is not > > > taxed as highly because the value of the property is depreciated. It > > > doesn't matter whether the property is old or new.. That makes this a > maor > > > income generating opportunity for real estate owners. They can withdraw > > > money since their tax is minimal. But being a rock star is not like > being a > > > real estater. Believe me, I know all about rock music. > > > > > > OK so when I go to do rock star work, my work has some value, but there > > > are also costs. Now what if I say that I can rock twice for the same > > > cost.. No that is not true. I can not double rock and roll. > > > > > > But if I have cash to invest, in rock stars, then what I can do is > invest > > > for a higher interest. I ell that rock star he has to rock for my > money, or > > > I will put a lien on that guitar and drums till he pays off. He tells > me > > > some sad story, I can' rock but once, eh. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > End of Discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 58 > ***************************************
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
