Re: More Copyright infringement Info



On 06 Dec 2006, "FLY135" <fly_135@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
alt.guitar.beginner:


Lumpy wrote:
pinodiuva@xxxxxxxx wrote:

Everyone wants the artist to be
genrously compensated for their work.
But fair use and and the rights
of individuals also come into play.

Exactly what 'right' is it that YOU think you
have to someone else's work?

Where does the line get drawn? What right do you have to write
down the notes as you hear them? What right do you have to play
those notes? What right do you have to show someone else how to
play a song?

The artists published the songs and people bought them. People
wanted to know how to play the song so they listened and wrote
down the notes. They aren't even nessarily the same notes in the
song, but a similar sequence.

Part of the problem with this discussion is that we all keep
see-sawing between what _consumers_ _want_ and what the
"producers" want. Each side has opposing wants and some sort
of compromise must be arrived at. Authors must eat, so the consumer
must pay them for their work. This is only fair. Producers also need
consumers, so they can't price themselves out of a job.

In a free market economy, the _amount_ gets set usually what the
market will _bear_.

What I see happening now is that the consumer (the public) is saying
that they don't want to "bear" so _much_. At the same time, RIAA,
BMI etc. are sending out their lawyers to cash on every last scrap
of revenue they can.

At the same time, I think its an attempt on their part to protect
the status quo, rather than embrace some sort of reasonable online
commerce model. Remember the fuss over audio cassettes? Remember the
fuss over VCRs? CDs?

A compromise will be worked out eventually, but in the meantime it
will be a struggle. The concept of "fair use" came from legal cases
-- not from friendly record companies.

This is where the publishers have an opportunity. With mp3's,
which were clearly a copyright violation, they adapted the
marketing to sell songs over the web and license companies like
Napster.

This is clearly needed, but they haven't worked out the glitches
yet. Producers are pushing DRM, but the consumer is saying, "no, I
want to transfer that track to whatever device, operating system or
whatever of my own choosing-- don't lock me into one device". People
want ease of use, and recording companies want full restrictions.

People are also getting sick of having to repurchase the same thing
many times over (just because its on a new media or they lost their
DRM license on the computer). I do agree however, that you should
pay for anything "remastered", digital or otherwise. Someone had to
do the work for that. But at what price?

Now with transcriptions it isn't so clear what is and
what isn't legal. But they have the upper hand because most
people won't risk getting sued posting tabs.

Personally, my _opinion_ is that going after TAB sites is going way
too far. Having lyrics and TABs around are in the best interest of
sales IMO (benefiting the producers) but the recording companies
only seem to see it as lost revenue. That's a rather short-sighted
vision, but that is just my opinion.

After the dust finally settles on this, there will be new battles of
the same kind, but over different formats or delivery methods. It
will always be a compromise between consumer and producer.

Both sides want it better than they have it now. I don't think
you'll ever really see the dust settle permantly because that
delicate dividing line doesn't stop moving.

Maybe we'll something like a daily RIAA index like some stock market
quotation in the near future. ;-)

Snark.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.