I'm in a totally different field (health care) and therefore, just a
consumer/collector. So from an outsider's perspective, it seems to me
after reading this stimulating thread, that our copyright laws, which
are meant to protect the creators of creations, not only fail to do
that, but also fail the consumers of these creations as well. The
result: lack of payment to the creators, lack of purchasing power by the
consumer. And we wonder why our economy is floundering?
I always thought the idea of a VAT on why I call "fake free access" was
never expanded. When I purchased by CD duplicator, I was required to use
special music CDs that had an extra cost tacked on to their price to
compensate creators. I thought such a VAT made perfect sense. Why not
expand that all the way up to internet access, just like bridge tolls
subsidize public transportation?
On 8/28/10 2:33 PM, Karl Miller wrote:
> --- On Sat, 8/28/10, Peter Charuza<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Now how do we outsource I music and movie production, cheaper to make, more
> to profit. (not to be over critical but the current 'American Dream' really
> is based on the idea of creating a good that you then resell for profit. If
> that good is too expensive to make and lacks profit. Well... As we see this
> ideal is quickly becoming outdated)
> I am reminded of years ago when I was an avid collector of music written for films. There were those in the industry who loved the music as well. Some of the "insiders" would make duplicates of the film scores late at night. I have recordings of many scores that were not, at that time, available on disc.
> The market for a film score is small, by some estimates no more than 3,000 units. Some lobbying was done and a few in the film industry, with the agreement of the union, made some compromises which allows for the reuse of some music for the collector market. So now we can buy a few things and hear them in better sound than those 3rd and 4th generation copies I used to have.
> The more recent Union contracts will let an orchestra make a recording of concert performances at a significantly reduced rate.
> My point is that there is some progress being made, but there are still significant problems.
> When one speaks about having the music for free...when it comes to classical music I am reminded of companies like Naxos and Brilliant Classics. Why download, when for the cost of next to nothing you can have the recording in a nice box with notes and in better sound? I believe this makes sense. Of course, as the sales statistics (for those who are paying) indicate, MP3's are fine for quite a few of the population.
> When I lectured on copyrights I often made the comparison of music to water. You go on a trip, and you turn the faucet on, and water comes out. You drink it. You are outside your municipal water district. You didn't pay for the taxes that were used to purify that water. So, in a sense you are getting something you didn't pay for. How do you convince a younger generation that getting a song for free is wrong, when it is as easy to access as turning on that tap and getting the water.
> And then we have those in Washington and in the industry that would like to see copyright extended in perpetuity! It makes no sense to me.