Piratpartiets mötesplattform


Svara
 
Ämnesverktyg Sök i det här ämnet Visningsalternativ
  (#1) Gammal
Mika Sjöman Inte uppkopplad
 
Inlägg: 196
Reg.datum: Jan 2006
Standard Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-04, 10:46

Brevet:<br>
------<br>
<br>
<br>
I read Rick Falkvinge"s completely ignorant statements regarding music copyright at the linuxp2p.com website and don"t even know how to begin responding. He"s obviously not an artist and knows nothing about the medium and the revenue it generates for artists. <br>
<br>
First off, to quote him, he said:<br>
<br>
"If you look at the industry, any investment made is usually calculated to have paid itself within a few years, say five years. We believe this is a reasonable term. That would mean that any music, movie, etc, would have five years of monopolized sales under copyright before it becomes a free-for-all, which is more than sufficient to regain any investment."<br>
<br>
He surely can"t be confusing "art" with "industry", can he? The stereotype of the struggling artist exists because it is real, not a myth. To dedicate one"s life to the pursuit of artistic ideals comes at a great price for many. There is no security, guaranteed future, or payoff that the artist can count on concretely. Usually, the only light at the end of the tunnel is that hopefully, someday, someone will recognize the artist"s works and that he or she will benefit from it. A musician usually has a very brief window of opportunity and only one or two chances to derive any income from the years of learning, practicing and laboring that go into becoming a "bankable" recording artist. <br>
<br>
You want a typical musician scenario? How about this: Five kids form a band in their garage and write a handful of songs. In case you are not aware of international copyright law, this is the moment the songs are automatically copyrighted...the moment they are affixed to paper. The next step is to register the copyright with an appropriate organization which for all practical purposes is the recorded legal date of copyright, and is recommended to anyone who will be performing or releasing their music to the public so they don"t have their ideas stolen or plagiarized. <br>
<br>
Okay, so the songs are copyrighted and now the band starts playing some local concerts. They don"t get paid anything for these concerts because they"re just starting out but slowly over the next year of long drives and bad pay they begin to build up a small following of fans. Maybe a friend says that they will be their manager or agent and try to get them some better gigs that actually pay for their gas money. Great. They start getting better gigs and over the next year they put all the money they earn at their day jobs into buying better equipment, maybe even a used van they can sleep in on those gigs a few hundred miles from their homes. They might even pay a few thousand dollars to record, press and release a single, and then spend several hundred dollars more to mail it to radio stations in places like Kansas City, Stockholm, Manchester, or wherever they want to get exposure.<br>
<br>
Two years after the band formed in the garage they attract the attention of a new indie record label that really believe in them. They get together and after 2 months of talking, they have their entertainment lawyers make up a contract that they"re both happy with. The band signs a record deal that gives them a small advance of $1000 dollars, but pays for all their studio time and lets them keep their publishing royalties, because that"s what"s valuable to an artist, the art itself. The musical composition. The copyright. Their baby. Their creation.<br>
<br>
Okay, they"ve signed a deal and now they need to find a studio to record in, and a producer to make sure the record sounds great. They settle on a small studio that"s available 3 months from now, but the producer isn"t available at that time. They check their calendars and set a date 6 months out when both the studio, the producer, and the band have free time. July is when the drummer can take time off from his job at the gas station to spend time in the studio, so July it is! Cool. They record their album in 2 weeks and everybody at the record company loves it! Time to set a release date! In order to coordinate publicity in print, radio, and record stores to happen at the same time, the record needs to be sent out to the proper magazine editors, etc., at LEAST 4 months before the official release date. But shit, 4 months from the day the CD comes back from the factory (which took about a month to have pressed) brings us to a December release date. Everyone knows you can"t promote a record by an unknown band in December because every other company in the world is hyping their established products at the same time hoping for big Christmas sales. So that"s out. January is no good either, because nobody buys stuff after Christmas because everyone"s broke!<br>
<br>
MARCH 14th! The record is finally out! The band starts touring, maybe in support of a bigger band that can draw crowds of 2000 people. Kickass! They get paid $500 dollars for each show which is more money than they"ve ever made at a gig before! After 5 months of shows like this they finally get played enough on the radio and get enough fans that they can now headline their own gigs! Things are looking good! The record has sold 100.000 copies and the indie label is thrilled! After distribution and retail cuts, the label has grossed $800,000! Of course, less than a dollar from each CD sold goes to the band, minus the studio costs ($10,000), producer fee ($6,000) promotional expenses ($15,000 in magazine ads and free promos) manufacturing expenses ($135,000 for 100,000 CDs pressed). The record company has a lot of expenses which they subtract from the artists royalties, but at least the musicians get their publishing money which the record company can"t touch! That"s another dollar per CD! The band had a smart lawyer which made sure the band kept their copyright in the songs.<br>
<br>
The band gets paid $100,000 dollars from the record company for their copyright in the songs on the CD. Minus 10 percent to their manager. That"s still $90,000! Split between 5 guys that comes to $18,000 EACH!<br>
<br>
Not bad for nearly four years of hard work, long drives, and dedication to their artistic ideals! They"ve earned about $4,500 dollars a year! Good thing they skipped college and borrowed thousands of dollars from their friends and families to make their dream come true!!! Under Rick Falkvinge"s Pirate Party proposal, now they only have about a year left on the copyright to those songs they wrote back in the garage. <br>
<br>
The only hope for real money the artist has is if they get picked up on a movie soundtrack, a TV theme, or get an offer from a publishing company to administer their work. The publisher will pay the band a large advance and then try to generate money from the only thing the artist has which is worth anything: the intellectual property of their work. This can include sheet music sales, synch licenses, etc. These revenues might take YEARS to secure. They almost always do. You know how you hear Nick Drake, Led Zeppelin and other artists in car commercials or beer commercials? That"s because the songs have VALUE to them...artistic merit that evokes a certain mood. That mood is worth a lot of money to the car and beer companies, and they fork over big bucks to the guys who CREATED this mood for the right to the compositions. Maybe the artist will say NO, you can"t use my creation to sell your horrible product. Maybe they say YES but only if you pay me enough to send my daughter to college. They can say anything they want. They OWN it.<br>
<br>
You really think a 5 year exclusive copyright is a fair proposal? Current copyright laws are in effect today to protect the artist and authors of a piece of intellectual property. Your Pirate party proposes to take this away from independent filmmakers and musicians? Shame on you. In fact, Fuck you! Music is an honest trade just like any other, and its creators may or may not hope to build up a nest egg for their kids and grandchildren, just like any other small business owner. It"s really up to them. It certainly is not up to you and your idiotic proposals for legislation.<br>
<br>
What if you staked out a plot of land and spent years preparing the soil, ridding it of rocks, cutting down bushes, hoping against drought, disease and parasites, and finally developed a crop that might supply you and your children with future income? It would be a gamble for sure, but after all this hard work and no pay you managed to do just that. You made something out of nothing and you did it all yourself. You created a valuable legacy out of all your sweat and tears.<br>
<br>
Now suppose someone forms a Pirate Farmer Public Interest group and says that everyone should have the right to come on to your land, set up camp, eat your crops, and even sell the product you"ve invented without paying you a thing? Fuck them! Time to get the shotgun out!<br>
<br>
Just because you don"t feel like paying for your entertainment and think you should get the fruits of my labor for free doesn"t make it right or even remotely fair. Why don"t you create your own art? You think copyright hampers creativity and the growth of culture? WRONG! Copyright insures that the occasional creative person won"t have their works appropriated by car and beer companies. Copyright law already has plenty of allowances for fair use and derivative works. Art is inspirational and can encourage others to create. It has been doing so for thousands of years.<br>
<br>
I might change my opinion if you start sending me half of your paycheck each month. Sound good? Great, email me privately and I"ll supply you with the necessary contact info so I can start enjoying the benefits of YOUR work. After all, I deserve it! I see that Rick Falkvinge registered his political party"s website in December of 2005. So can I expect that around Christmas of 2010 I can count on him to split up any contributions he might receive and hand them out to strangers? How many Swedish Kroner can I get? Where do I sign up?<br>
<br>
Oh, I see....THAT"s different!<br>
<br>
charles normal - musician<br>
www.softcoremusic.com<br>
<br>
-----------<br>
SVARET:<br>
-----------<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Charles!<br>
<br>
I was actually exited to give you a good answer, but you almost lost my interest at the "fuck you" part.<br>
<br>
What you want is money, sure we all do. The pirate party never said culture comes free, that"s a big misconception. Everything costs, and what you just in your long letter told us is that the music industry does not work for musicians today. It sucks for them.<br>
<br>
We are not after the musician, we are after the record labels and media companies that are pirating on both consumers and what we could call the creative people.<br>
We want a system that work, that acctually takes moey from the media-companies and puts the musician in a stronger position than they are today. Today they are in an incredibly week position as you also describe it.<br>
<br>
As you say, culture has value, we agree. But we say that culture has it"s value when it becomes spread to the public. What we want to do in this area are to aim at two objectives; 1. to make sure that every person in the society have the right to take part of the culture - there are no extra costs of letting people have that in a digital age. 2. make sure that creative people get a better chance to actually produce culture. Yes that will cost, even for Rickard Falkwinge, nothing comes for free.<br>
<br>
The issue is not about copyright per se, it"s about getting a system that actually meets these two objectives.<br>
<br>
Sincerely<br>
<br>
Mika Sjöman<br>
the Swedish Pirate Party


------------------------------------------------<br>
"De inskränkningar av "... medborgarnas rättigheter till privatliv... " som förslaget innebär är proportionella och nödvändiga om det gemensamt erkända målet att förebygga och bekämpa brottslighet och terrorism skall kunna uppnås." - [Datalagringsdirektivet] Sjukt!
   
Svara med citat
  (#2) Gammal
Daniel.Lecoq Inte uppkopplad
 
Daniel.Lecoqs avatar
 
Inlägg: 259
Reg.datum: Mar 2006

Länk: #14478
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-04, 12:52

Citat:
Not bad for nearly four years of hard work, long drives, and dedication to their artistic ideals! They've earned about $4,500 dollars a year! Good thing they skipped college and borrowed thousands of dollars from their friends and families to make their dream come true!!! Under Rick Falkvinge's Pirate Party proposal, now they only have about a year left on the copyright to those songs they wrote back in the garage.


Vi får väl hoppas att bandet fortsätter att göra musik, och inte stannar vid låtarna dom skrev i garaget, så länge dom fortsätter så har dom nya 5 år, och 5 år, och 5 år...


_________________________



"Great minds discuss ideas,

average minds discuss events,

small minds discuss people."

--Admiral Hyman G. Rickove

_________________________



Daniél Lecoq



email: daniel.lecoq@piratpartiet.se

backupemail: curse@curzed.net

msn: curse@curzed.net

skype: AsgardCurse

tel: 0761- 669695



Nässjö



PS. skriv PP som meddelande om ni lägger till mig i MSN/Skype
  Skicka ett meddelande via MSN till Daniel.Lecoq  
Svara med citat
  (#3) Gammal
von Flopp Inte uppkopplad
 
von Flopps avatar
 
Inlägg: 135
Reg.datum: Jan 2006

Länk: #14550
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-04, 18:20

Om de lyckas göra en sådan formidabel succé att de faktiskt får ett genombrott ligger de ju riktigt bra till:



Folk har köpt deras skivor i fem år. -De ha fått en beundrarskara.

Är bandet bara tillräckligt bra, vilket är ett kriterium för att lyckas i överhuvudtaget, så kommer de att få massor av spelningar nu. Och när de ger ut sin nästa skiva kommer den förhoppningsvis sälja ännu bättre än den förra - om den är bra nog.



Visst. Folk tankar deras musik och är glada. Men räkna med att de även går på konserter o.s.v. Jag tycker att ekvationen går ihop, vad tycker ni?


   
Svara med citat
  (#4) Gammal
Bo Leuf Inte uppkopplad
 
Bo Leufs avatar
 
Inlägg: 610
Reg.datum: Jan 2006

Länk: #14654
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-05, 00:11

Det sorgliga är att artisters bitterhet över aktuella villkoren gör de flesta blinda för nya möjligheter där de faktiskt har en rimlig chans att göra sig hörda istället för att filtreras ut av distributörerna topplistor.


---

&mdash; Att vara pirat är att segla rak kurs oavsett väder och vind -- för endast då når vi fram.
   
Svara med citat
  (#5) Gammal
Richie Inte uppkopplad
 
Richies avatar
 
Inlägg: 2 520
Reg.datum: Dec 2005

Länk: #14729
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-05, 11:44

Mitt svar till honom:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"In case you are not aware of international copyright law, this is the moment the songs are automatically copyrighted...the moment they are affixed to paper. The next step is to register the copyright with an appropriate organization which for all practical purposes is the recorded legal date of copyright, and is recommended to anyone who will be performing or releasing their music to the public so they don"t have their ideas stolen or plagiarized."<br>
<br>
Actually, under the Berne convention, it is not necessary to register the copyright anywhere. You are probably confusing this with registering with a collection society, they tend to confuse this issue to increase their registration rates. Oh, and the copyright exists if the work is recorded in any way, shape or form, not just affixed to paper.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Under Rick Falkvinge"s Pirate Party proposal, now they only have about a year left on the copyright to those songs they wrote back in the garage."<br>
<br>
Nope. They still have a five year commercial copyright for their recorded CD. However, in a year"s time, someone else can come along and re-record the songs and release them as cover songs and they"d have a new five-year copyright term on that recording. They"d still have to give credit for the originals, but they would not have to pay any royalties. Our band could also re-record the album themselves and get another five year copyright for that specific recording, even if their first recording"s copyright has expired. The point here is to still make it possible to use album sales for income, but at the same time steer the recording industry"s business models away from treating artists like CD-producing cattle and gouge the customers with DRM-damaged copies. Touring and merchandise sales would, just like the current trend is predicting, become even more important. Artists would get paid when the perform and composers would get paid when they create new music instead of having a broken system that promotes getting one big hit and living off that for 70 years after their own deaths. Check the numbers, very few artists/composers make a living off of copyrighted materials today, the musician"s union has a 22% unemployment rate and fon"t blame downloading because it"s been the same since the sixties. The current system is severely skewed towards the middle-men, the distributors. We finally have the technology to cut them out, to create a direct connection between creators and their fans and we believe we must seize that chance.<br>
<br>
It"s not about getting stuff fro free, it"s about liberating both the artists, composers and the fans from a broken system. We need to find ways to get more people employed in the music industry and fewer in the record industry, but copyrights are getting in the way of that goal since they create incentives for skimming profits that should rightfully go to the artists and robbing customers of their fair use rights at the same time. We"re both getting fucked and it needs to stop, right now. For real.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"the only thing the artist has which is worth anything: the intellectual property of their work."<br>
<br>
You severely underestimate the real worth of the composer - that she or he can compose. Or that the artist can perform. THAT is what they should make money off of, not copying. You see, copying today is a zero-cost proposition, but yet copyrights and the recording industry tries to create an added value (which to the rest of us translates into an added cost) in the copying and distribution of a piece of music. We say that the value lies not in the copy, but in the performance and the business models need to change to accurately reflect that.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Maybe the artist will say NO, you can"t use my creation to sell your horrible product."<br>
<br>
Naturally, we still allow this. You must separate the different parts of copyrights. We"re only going for the exclusive economic copyright, not the inalienable parts.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"They OWN it."<br>
<br>
And this is where we differ, fundamentally. We say that you can NOT own an idea, an expression of culture or knowledge. You can be granted an exclusive right to use it commercially for a limited time, though. That is what copyright is. It is NOT ownership.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Music is an honest trade just like any other"<br>
<br>
Yes, but the recording industry is clearly not.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Now suppose someone forms a Pirate Farmer Public Interest group and says that everyone should have the right to come on to your land, set up camp, eat your crops, and even sell the product you"ve invented without paying you a thing?"<br>
<br>
This is a false analogy. In that case, you would take something that then would not exist for me anymore. If I copy your song, you will not have lost it. You still have it. Ideas can not be stolen, only shared. Music can not be stolen, only listened to. The Swedish concept of "allemansrätt" is actually pretty close to what you"re describing, only that, just like our proposal, it requires that nothing be taken (except pine cones and berries) or destroyed. Would you want to abolish our "allemansrätt" to protect the rights of land-owners? And by the way, most of us DO create various things which we DO give away for free. In some cases, we haven"t had any strong lobbying groups on our side so our works were not deemed worthy of protection, but in most cases we give it away voluntarily. This letter, for instance, can be copied freely.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Copyright law already has plenty of allowances for fair use and derivative works."<br>
<br>
While the recording and movie industries use political lobbying and DRM technology to take those away, one by one. Are you suggesting that we should just let them do so?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"Art is inspirational and can encourage others to create. It has been doing so for thousands of years."<br>
<br>
Exactly. But we"ve only had today"s copyrights for much less than a hundred years...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"I see that Rick Falkvinge registered his political party"s website in December of 2005."<br>
<br>
You are free to copy the website today. Actually, we encourage it. After all, the real value in ideas lie in them being shared.<br>
<br>


-- Old pirates never die, they just row faster
  Skicka ett meddelande via Skype™ till Richie  
Svara med citat
  (#6) Gammal
Richie Inte uppkopplad
 
Richies avatar
 
Inlägg: 2 520
Reg.datum: Dec 2005

Länk: #14730
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-05, 11:45

Och hans svar tillbaka:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Actually, under the Berne convention, it is not necessary to register the copyright anywhere. You are probably confusing this with registering with a collection society, they tend to confuse this issue to increase their registration rates. Oh, and the copyright exists if the work is recorded in any way, shape or form, not just affixed to paper.<br>
<br>
<br>
I didn"t say "necessary", I said "recommended". It registers a date with an official date of acceptance that a judge can more easily understand. Regarding collection societies, I"m not confused at all. Apparently you are unaware that radio stations are big business and that they charge advertisers a lot of money to reach their listeners. The reason the station HAS listeners is because they are playing music that people want to listen to. Accordingly, the radio stations must then pay the people who wrote that music a small fee for the right to play the songs. It"s only a few cents each time the song is played, but it can add up if your song is played often. You might not like the idea that a "collection society" (I think you mean "performing rights society") takes a portion of that payment, but they should get paid a bit for monitoring all these radio stations. How would the artist know how many times their song was played in Luxembourg or Sydney otherwise? Do you realize that the money the radio stations pay goes straight to the songwriter? NOT to the record company?<br>
<br>
But your party would make sure that the artist wouldn"t get paid anything after 5 years. Sure, the radio station would still make money from the advertisers, but they wouldn"t have to give even a few cents to the songwriter. You think that would encourage art and culture? I think it would lead to a lot of radio stations only playing 5 year old songs so that they wouldn"t have to pay those "greedy" songwriters. Great....keep all the money in the corporate wallets. Screw the songwriters.<br>
<br>
And thank you for pointing out that copyright exists if it"s recorded, not just affixed to paper. I can"t think of many songs that spontaneously occur when tape is rolling in a studio. Most composers write down their ideas on paper before they go into the studio. That"s the moment most songs are automatically copyrighted.<br>
<br>
They"d still have to give credit for the originals, but they would not have to pay any royalties.<br>
<br>
<br>
Why not? You sell a record for 125 kroner and you"re too selfish to give 1 or 2 kroner to the person who wrote the song you considered good enough to record?<br>
<br>
<br>
Our band could also re-record the album themselves and get another five year copyright for that specific recording, even if their first recording"s copyright has expired. The point here is to still make it possible to use album sales for income, but at the same time steer the recording industry"s business models away from treating artists like CD-producing cattle and gouge the customers with DRM-damaged copies.<br>
<br>
<br>
You"re living in a dreamworld. Record companies often suck, that"s true. But they pay the thousands and thousands of dollars it takes to publicize a band. I know you dream of a digital world but you know what? People still read magazines and newspapers and respond to advertising. You know how much an ad in Spin Magazine costs? Would you believe $75,000 for a full page ad? You think bands have that kind of money? No. The record companies screw the musicians but at least the law says that they can"t screw the musicians out of their mechanical royalties. I guess you"d like to see that law changed. That"s the one thing every musician I know is proud of. The fact that they created art and that no corporate asshole can take away their ownership of their art. But now your Pirate Party wants to do just that.<br>
<br>
Do you know the difference between the copyrights of compositions and the copyright of sound recordings? There is a very distinct difference. You can see on the back of your CD that there is a "circle C" and a "circle P" . The record company owns the sound recordings (circle P) and the songwriter owns the rights inherent in the composition (circle C"). Why don"t you push for a 5 year limit on the sound recording copyright only. That would limit the stranglehold over the artist that the record company has, but still allow the songwriter to exercise some control over how their song is used in movies, TV, etc., and also guarantee that the songwriter is paid a few cents each time a radio station plays the song. For the rest of their lives. That"s fair.<br>
<br>
Why would you want to cut the songwriter off from this source of future income? Is your party actually a front for the recording industry? It sure sounds like it.<br>
<br>
Artists would get paid when the perform and composers would get paid when they create new music instead of having a broken system that promotes getting one big hit and living off that for 70 years after their own deaths.<br>
<br>
<br>
Why do you care that record companies, radio stations, and other corporate interests have to pay the songwriters? The listener doesn"t have to pay! And what"s wrong with ONE big hit? Look at any artist from the 70s or 80s that you can remember. There"s always that ONE song they happened to write that somehow became an important touchstone in culture. The rest of their songs are often rubbish. Why shouldn"t they get paid 4 cents whenever some Clear Channel conglomerate wants to play it to reap advertising revenue?<br>
<br>
Check the numbers, very few artists/composers make a living off of copyrighted materials today,<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes, please show me those numbers and I"ll show you that 99 percent of "hit" bands from 10 years ago aren"t filling stadiums anymore but still get a bit of money from performing rights societies like STIM, BMI, and TONO., and occasionally make a few bucks from a TV ad or by a new band doing a cover version of the song.<br>
<br>
the musician"s union has a 22% unemployment rate and fon"t blame downloading because it"s been the same since the sixties. The current system is severely skewed towards the middle-men, the distributors. We finally have the technology to cut them out, to create a direct connection between creators and their fans and we believe we must seize that chance.<br>
<br>
<br>
Musician"s unions don"t mean anything. They might provide legal advice during contract disputes or something like that, but you can"t guarantee work for an artist. What if the artist isn"t very good at what they do? Who will hire them to make records or play at clubs? It"s not like a factory worker"s union where big business needs to pay a set wage to the assembly line guy. Copyright law is the only equivalent. It says "You want to use an artist"s song? Then PAY him!"<br>
<br>
Actually, you are wrong about distributors. Let"s say an artist is smart enough to have their own record company. The record sells for $15.98 in the stores. The record company consigns product to the distributor for $8.00, the distributor adds $2.10 and sends it to the record store, which makes $5.88 cents on each record. Skewed? What are you talking about? The distributor pays shipping as well. This is an outdated business in the light of new digital technology. The record company should now sell directly to the consumer over the net. Right?<br>
<br>
But why do you want to screw the songwriter over long term royalties? This is the part that"s completely unbelievable about your Party. Artists make little as it is and now you want to take that away.<br>
<br>
It"s not about getting stuff for free, it"s about liberating both the artists, composers and the fans from a broken system.<br>
<br>
<br>
Stealing = Liberation. Is that your point? You want to do some real good for musicians? Start a free legal service for musicians, become a publisher and put unknown deserving artists on the cover of your magazine, do anything you think that will encourage struggling artists short of telling them that they won"t get paid after 5 years. Because that"s what you"re telling them.<br>
<br>
We say that you can NOT own an idea, an expression of culture or knowledge. You can be granted an exclusive right to use it commercially for a limited time, though. That is what copyright is. It is NOT ownership.<br>
<br>
<br>
Sure. 5 years isn"t enough time though. Why not the lifetime of the artist? You think the idea will have passed its prime by then? Then it wasn"t important enough culturally to stand the test of time. How did you arrive at this magic 5 year barrier?<br>
<br>
Music can not be stolen, only listened to. The Swedish concept of "allemansrätt" is actually pretty close to what you"re describing, only that, just like our proposal, it requires that nothing be taken (except pine cones and berries) or destroyed. Would you want to abolish our "allemansrätt" to protect the rights of land-owners?<br>
<br>
<br>
Allemansratt allows an overnight stay (or is it a few nights?) on privately owned land. It doesn"t allow people to live on the land permanently. It doesn"t say that gypsies OR retirees can set up a permanent house 5 years after you cultivate your farmland! And music CAN be stolen. If you want some real life examples I can give you some lengthy ones if you request it. I"m currently in legal proceedings against a filmmaker who has used 22 of my songs as the soundtrack to a film he"s showing on the festival circuit, and negotiating distribution for. The thesis of the film is something I don"t agree with, and am opposed to, but audiences assume I support because, hey, there are my songs! The DVDs are selling for 25 bucks apiece. Wouldn"t it be nice if the guy had asked me first? I might have said NO, or YES, for a small percentage of the proceeds.<br>
<br>
While the recording and movie industries use political lobbying and DRM technology to take those away, one by one. Are you suggesting that we should just let them do so?<br>
<br>
<br>
I"m suggesting that the lowly musician gets a few coins for all the years he spent in his bedroom learning his instrument. I"m suggesting that 5 years after the songwriter gets totally ripped off by record companies he can still get a few tarnished pennies everytime someone like Britney Spears has a huge corporate hit with his material, even if it is 25 years later.<br>
<br>
Exactly. But we"ve only had today"s copyrights for much less than a hundred years...<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank god after all those centuries authors and composers finally got acknowledged!<br>
<br>
You are free to copy the website today. Actually, we encourage it. After all, the real value in ideas lie in them being shared.<br>
<br>
<br>
Excellent! I shall copy it immediately then. I"ll get a domain name like www.piratpartiet2.se and then copy your HTML exactly. Well, maybe I can change a "few" things. Artistic interpretation you know! Like the address where people can send donations. I guess I should use my own bank account number there, eh?<br>
<br>
No, on second thought, I won"t do that. That would be stealing. I"m against making money off of other people"s ideas. I think it"s more honorable to measure my own worth by my own ideas. I"ll leave monetary exploitation of ideas to the record companies and self interest groups operating under the guise of "cultural liberation"...<br>
<br>
c.n.


-- Old pirates never die, they just row faster
  Skicka ett meddelande via Skype™ till Richie  
Svara med citat
  (#7) Gammal
Vidvinkel Inte uppkopplad
 
Inlägg: 270
Reg.datum: Mar 2006

Länk: #14754
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-05, 13:20

Citat:
You are free to copy the website today. Actually, we encourage it. After all, the real value in ideas lie in them being shared.






Okj lite OT :-) kanske: Men jag tänkte på det där med att sprida PPs hemsida fritt. Det är väll inte så dumt. Snarare väldigt bra. MEN! Om någon reggar piratpartiet.org,.com.nu .jp osv osv och lägger upp en kopia på materialet MEN låter sedan bli att uppdatera hemsidan. Eller man kanske rent av pulicerar pp:s princip program 1.0. Hur ska man ställas ig tilldet? Det kan ju uppenbarlgen skada partiet.



Citat:
Why would you want to cut the songwriter off from this source of future income? Is your party actually a front for the recording industry? It sure sounds like it.


Jag håller fullständigt med här faktiskt. Jag säger inte att alternativet ska vara att behålal saker som dom är. Men jag håller med om att 5 års gränsen bara gynnar bolagen (jag vet att jag tjatar:-)) Det måste finnas ett annat sätt. Ni har ine hört det argumentet för sista gången. Iden från början är väll baserad på stora vinstgivande produktioner (partiledaren själv använde ju LOR som exempel i en intervj)
   
Svara med citat
  (#8) Gammal
laws of tradition Inte uppkopplad
 
Inlägg: 497
Reg.datum: Mar 2006

Länk: #14844
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-05, 20:21

Har du ett svar på gång Richie?


/R
   
Svara med citat
  (#9) Gammal
jon Inte uppkopplad
 
Inlägg: 57
Reg.datum: Mar 2006

Länk: #14939
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-06, 13:10

Vad sägs om urkundsförfalskning eller motsvarande?


"Och som sagt.. kreativiteten fanns långt innan copyright.. och den kommer finnas kvar långt efter." Kopierat från en kommentar signaturen Ozon på idg.se 2006-08-31 23:15<br>
/Jon
   
Svara med citat
  (#10) Gammal
SM5POR Inte uppkopplad
 
SM5PORs avatar
 
Inlägg: 2 983
Reg.datum: Feb 2006

Länk: #15320
Standard RE: Intressant svar från någon amerikan - 2006-04-07, 22:58

Citat:
Vidvinkel (2006-Apr-05)Okj lite OT :-) kanske: Men jag tänkte på det där med att sprida PPs hemsida fritt. Det är väll inte så dumt. Snarare väldigt bra. MEN! Om någon reggar piratpartiet.org,.com.nu .jp osv osv och lägger upp en kopia på materialet MEN låter sedan bli att uppdatera hemsidan. Eller man kanske rent av pulicerar pp:s princip program 1.0. Hur ska man ställas ig tilldet? Det kan ju uppenbarlgen skada partiet.
Piratpartiet har redan publicerat version 1.0 av sitt principprogram. Varför skulle det skada partiet att någon annan publicerar inaktuella dokument? Du kan inte "opublicera" något som en gång publicerats, ej heller kräva att andra uppdaterar eventuella kopior. Den oförmågan är ungefär lika skadlig som friheten att studera historia.


Anders Andersson
   
Svara med citat
Svara

Ämnesverktyg Sök i det här ämnet
Sök i det här ämnet:

Avancerad sökning
Visningsalternativ

Regler för att posta
Du får inte posta nya ämnen
Du får inte posta svar
Du får inte posta bifogade filer
Du får inte redigera dina inlägg

BB-kod är
Smilies är
[IMG]-kod är
HTML-kod är av


Liknande ämnen
Ämne Startat av Forum Svar Senaste inlägg
Svar från svenska PRV angående "Patent på liv?" warpi Kunskap och patenträtt 2 2010-01-13 06:39
Svar från FRA Staffan Lindberg PP i media 3 2008-07-19 13:22
Intressant läsning från DI Alexander F PP i media 17 2006-04-14 14:39



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Svensk översättning av: Anders Pettersson
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com