Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?

Mike Rivers wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

Wow. If that is really the way things work now, then they don't work
at all.

That's just the point.

I think that the point is that they don't work that way, and never have.

Royalties used to be assessed on a per-unit-sold basis (I suspect
they still are, even in authorized downloads where there is no
physical product exchanged). Second-hand sales do not increase the
number of units sold, ergo, no further royalties are due to the
artist.

Sure they do.

How could the number of units sold increase if there is no increase in the
number of units manufactured?

They aren't given away. They may not be sold by the
record company, but they're still sold, and different people than
those who originally bought the CD are then hearing the music, just
as if they had bought it from the record company. So why should there
be a difference?

There should be *and is* a difference because there is no increase in the
number of units sold, and the creators have already been paid their fee. One
could argue that the fee is insufficient to cover all possible future uses
of the material, but that is a different matter altogether.

The fact that the record company can't account for
second-hand sales is no reason why NOBODY should account for them.

You seem to be trying to redefine commerce in a way that is inherently
unworkable.

While some folks pretend to be unclear about when theft occurs, it
isn't all that difficult to identify

We're not talking about theft here. Non-payment because there's no
vehicle for payment is not theft. It is, however, not fair to the
content creator in a system where he expects to be paid for the use of
his material no matter how it gets to the ear listening to it, or the
feet dancing to it.

You are describing expectations that can't be met under any current or
historical model of commerce. Royalties have never been paid on a
per-listener basis, even in commercial usages outside of live performances
(and typically not even then).

I really don't see why so many folks are confused about this.

It's not a matter of conusion, it'a a matter of not accepting that
someone isn't getting paid for his work according to the system.

The problem appears to be in your concept of how the system works. It has
never worked that way, and is unlikely to do so in the future for some
pretty obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trying to deny payments
for work.

Best,

Neil



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Product placement in written science fiction now available
    ... something has nothing to do with the story, does it really matter ... being paid for it or not. ... But back on the first hand, product placement has a natural cap on such ... volume escalations; sending more spam costs you more time, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: $1000/week?
    ... matter whether you've pecked it out one character at a time with two ... paint brushes, as long as you get the paint job you paid for. ... > Now if you were the MT who has your speed up to 2000 lpd and then ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Prince CD , Good or Bad
    ... It doesn't matter. ... He's been paid a quarter of a million quid, ... production costs and is less than a stadium act makes on a Saturday night. ...
    (uk.music.guitar)
  • Re: OT: Politics - where does the next K car come from?
    ... he's a saver of rotting corporations. ... Doesn't matter if he paid it back or didn't use it all. ...
    (rec.motorcycles.dirt)
  • Re: Any newbie Linux forums?
    ... are paid to help you out. ... call back sooner or later no matter how "dump" your original ... included while talking to the help desk who opens up the ticket ... But here people don't get paid for helping others out, ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)