wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
1 edit | So riddle me this... I've read elsewhere that a large proportion of blank media in this country carries a levy of sorts to "compensate" artists for the "fact" that "most" users buy this media in order to record songs, supposedly depriving the "artitsts" of additional revenue. (This of course depends on your definition of "artist", and the "facts" are debatable) Given the above:
- How can the **AA claim loss of revenue when the levy has been established expressly for compensating said artists?
- If it can be shown that the artists in question are receiving just compensation via the unilateral imposition of this levy, how can the **AA justifiably sue for piracy, loss of revenue, etc.
In addition to the above, both Copyrights and Patents were established in the constitution as a contract of sorts. The artists and inventors were to be granted limited monopolies in order to benefit from their creative works. In exchange, the creative work was to eventually pass into the public domain in order to enrich society at large and to allow others to build on established foundations. Given that the **AAs and other groups have repeatedly lobbied for extension of the monopoly term (thus depriving the public of its fair and equitable access to the works), how can their actions not be considered a breaking of the social contract contemplated by the constitution which, to my mind, is theivery equivalent to or worse than that which they claim to fight?
Discuss...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
| Sounds like treason to me. Earlier someone posted a pdf here about statistical significance and why the present length of copyright is bullshit and a violation of the wording of the consititution. You can't really use the media tax because most people just buy regular media to avoid the extra charge. |
|
|
|
| reply to wtansill
said by wtansill:How can the **AA claim loss of revenue when the levy has been established expressly for compensating said artists? Possibly the same way that they claim "breakage" on shipped CDs equal to breakage on shipped records and deduct accordingly from the artist's cut.
Also the same way that they reduce the number of CDs that they ship and then claim that since less CDs have been sold, piracy must have gone up.
Also the same way that they claim to be working to protect the livelihood of the artists but then sneak in legislation to classify all singers/bands as "works for hire" effectively giving the RIAA's members complete copyright control of the songs by default (as opposed to by contract). Of course, this last one was graciously reversed by the RIAA (after artists strongly protested and the RIAA smelled a revolt in the works).
In short, don't attempt to apply real logic to the RIAA's actions. You'll only give yourself a headache. Instead, to think like the RIAA, you must only think of one thing: How can I establish, expand, and maintain control on everything that surrounds me? Think like the ultimate control freak and you're off to a good start in understanding the RIAA. |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | reply to grandpinaple
Dunno about not using the media tax, but I don't have the facts at my fingertips, so I can't intelligently debate you.
OTOH, the person you are thinking of is, I believe, law professor Lawrence Lessig. IIRC, he was able to use a statistical model to show that the current copyright term gave the copyright holders something like 98% of the benefits of having a copyright in perpetutity.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
| reply to wtansill
Actually, I think it was Canada that said "Well, if the songs are already out there, it's illegal to *upload* them, but, since they're paying a tax already, we can't really make it illegal to download the stuff." Basically, if it's already out there, you can download it, but can't upload it. |
|
