how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | reply to Metatron2008
Re: About time someone helps said by Metatron2008:Stealing doesn't help though, no matter what corporations do. Well ok first, it isn't stealing. Certainly not legally.
Second, when all of their precious award shows are held at the VFW hall with everyone wearing clothes from WalMart, then we can talk.
The big talent and the big studios still get paid, TONS. All at the expense of the people actually doing the damn work behind the scenes. Pay Tom Cruise $250k for a picture instead of $20 mil and then we'll talk.
I buy what I want, I listen to what I want. I don't download "illegally." I know several bands I am a fan of, including RUSH have said likely no more studio albums because it costs too much and the industry just isn't supporting it.
Of course those who are bound to get the money still will. And bands who actually know how to play live will tour and make more that way then they ever will releasing records under labels who have since their inception existed by profiting off of the backs of artists they pay pennies compared to what the label keeps, just so the artist gets their taste of what it feels like to make it.
Please don't defend the fscking industry execs the labels and the whole corrupt BS system OK? There's just no point. It's indefensible.
Want to defend copyright? Fine, howabout reverting the limits back to what they were intended and not extended to 1000 years past the life of the last living relative of the artist which is basically what it is now with the labels being the ones "owning" the copyrights.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | | |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by GlobalMind:Want to defend copyright? Fine, howabout reverting the limits back to what they were intended and not extended to 1000 years past the life of the last living relative of the artist which is basically what it is now with the labels being the ones "owning" the copyrights. While your remarks are more than a bit over the top there were no corporate copyrights originally. They were intended for authors and artists who are actual living breathing human beings and not legal entities known as corporations. As the Declaration of Independence states, individual humans beings have certain inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Individual Copyrights may allow artists to pursue happiness. Corporations are not human (they have no mortal soul) and the only rights they have or should have are given (and can be taken away) by government. So if anyone views corporate copyrights or any copyrights extending more than fifty years as an abomination of justice, I certainly see your point. | |
GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by Sammer:said by GlobalMind:Want to defend copyright? Fine, howabout reverting the limits back to what they were intended and not extended to 1000 years past the life of the last living relative of the artist which is basically what it is now with the labels being the ones "owning" the copyrights. While your remarks are more than a bit over the top there were no corporate copyrights originally. They were intended for authors and artists who are actual living breathing human beings and not legal entities known as corporations. As the Declaration of Independence states, individual humans beings have certain inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Individual Copyrights may allow artists to pursue happiness. Corporations are not human (they have no mortal soul) and the only rights they have or should have are given (and can be taken away) by government. So if anyone views corporate copyrights or any copyrights extending more than fifty years as an abomination of justice, I certainly see your point. You are correct and I am well aware of what the original intent of copyright was.
However, it's been bastardized into what we have today, driven not by the actual artists but by the corporate interests who control the music business. Not all the artists "own" the copyrights to their music.
As to length, the term was originally set, and it's been gradually changed over the years. In the cases of copyrights being owned by the corporation, that "life" of the artist becomes essentially forever.
You consider my comments over the top, but I know there's those who absolutely support what I've said.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
