Michael O'Keefe wrote:
You don't think he deserves some sort of protection against the "pirates" that might distribute his film so that he won't get any revenue from it ?
I don't think it's a given that he does deserve protection. I haven't decided one way or another on whether copyright should be abolished but I like to play devils advocate on this because I am concerned that since we have always had copyright protection we may think we are entitled to it regardless of whether it is good for progress or not.
You make it sound like he would invest all that money even if there were no copyright and the poor guy would be ripped off. If there were no copyright he wouldn't invest so much money unless he had some other plan to recoup it so it would work out. Perhaps we should leave the multi-million dollar productions to people who can afford to spend that kind of money on "art" while the other artists without patrons or wealth do it for the love of art and produce things within their means? We might even get better quality if there weren't so much money behind it. I'm not nearly as interested in going to the movie theater anymore because I am now thoroughly numb to the marketing and special effects with the latest expensive "blockbuster" production.
I should attend more live theater and concerts. That is something artists can always get paid for, copyright or no. You just can't duplicate a real live performance. No, video/audio tape isn't the same.
-- Tracy R Reed http://ultraviolet.org A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
