Sir Mustapha
Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003 |
|
Posted: May 20 2011, 17:05 |
|
Quote (starfish @ May 20 2011, 16:40) | What's Sir Paul Doing wrong here exactly?
Together with his fellow Beatles, he wrote and performed a bunch of songs which a lot of people love. Why exactly shouldn't he have control over this work? Why should he be denied the right to exploit the fruits of his labour? He wants to ensure future income for his children, his heirs - how is this such a terrible thing? |
He wants to ensure his income? Well, keep on writing songs, then.
Basically, the principle I'm applying here is similar to the principle you've applied yourself to some of your points: dura lex, sed lex. It's maybe just a little unethical for an individual to change the law in a way that he has sole benefit. That's not how laws are supposed to work.
Quote | In other forms of art - such as literature and television - these copyrights last more than a lifetime. |
Well, I disagree with that, not with the relatively short length of music copyright.
Quote | You're reticent to predict the future, but I've got a scenario for you - a future where music is freely downloadble...
[...]
And while the public are lapping up middle-of-the-road X-Factor pop music and the thousandth Glee album, the smaller bands will go defunct, and the music world will be smaller and sadder as a result. |
I take your cataclysmic scenario with a grain of salt, but it's not mere antipathy in my part. For the RIAA and similar institutions, music has been killed at least three times: by the Internet, by recordable CDs and by cassette tapes!
Yes! The BPI made a campaign saying that CASSETTE TAPES were killing music! There's even a Wikipedia article about that!!
All those predicted catastrophes were, instead, proven wrong by what turned into a new, brilliant perspective for music. I don't see why it should be so different this time around. Indie bands would have difficulty getting off the ground? They already have! Getting a big label contract is completely against the odds, and the successful cases we see are tiny exceptions in a sea of failures. Tubular Bells was a case of mere luck, one happy incident, and I don't doubt there have been thousands of "Tubular Bells" and thousands of "Mike Oldfields" that never reached our ears.
Realistically, we already have a scenario in which music is "free". Yet, there are people who WANT to pay for music, who WANT to support their favourite artists; they may be a minority, but they are enough to keep the boat sailing. Like I said, producing vinyl records is profitable. Vinyl records! How many people buy vinyl records nowadays? Answer: enough for them to keep being produced.
I think your prediction is flawed mostly because it's biased and incomplete, much like my own predictions would be, and much like pretty much everyone else's. Everybody has an incomplete and flawed vision, and that's inherent to our human nature. I do think, however, that you have extremely valid views and concerns, and I'm not one that thinks you should be dismissed as a "capitalist pig". I know there are freaks like Richard Stallman who think that intellectual property should be banished completely from the world, but I'm not like that. I don't think any radical solution should be adopted. I don't carry a flag saying "ALL MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE!", because I think things should happen naturally -- and the way I personally see it, things are converging towards a balance.
-------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
|