?

Log in

No account? Create an account

del.icio.us links for 11-27-2008

« previous entry | next entry »
Nov. 27th, 2008 | 04:04 am

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {5}

Monument

(no subject)

from: marnanel
date: Nov. 27th, 2008 12:44 pm (UTC)
Link

"Instead they choose to kick us in the face"

Stupid wanker. ONLY getting FIFTY YEARS of exclusive rights is being kicked in the face, oh yes.

Reply | Thread

The Princess of Id

(no subject)

from: danaseilhan
date: Nov. 27th, 2008 02:30 pm (UTC)
Link

If the music industry in the UK is anything like the music industry in the United States, a lot of these guys did the bulk of their work when they were in their twenties. That means they're in their seventies when the copyright runs out, right at the time they're depending on pensions. I don't care what figures the anti-copyright folks shit out, if there's a chance these guys will be helped by the income they derive from their own work, then the copyright should be extended. It already has been for other groups of people, so there's no reason this group should be left out. They work just as hard as the famous musicians. They just aren't as well-known.

I am fine with the open-source ideology but it should be voluntary. When OSers go around demanding that everything be opened up for public use and consumption it sounds an awful lot like they're demanding the right to steal.

The sad part is, with technology being what it is, it's easier than ever for more and more people to make their own stuff. We can do our own graphic art for the Web, record our own music, write AND publish our own books. The blank canvas is there, so to speak. If we waste time complaining because someone else won't give us their painting to pass off as our own, we miss an important opportunity to exercise our own creativity.

It may be true that it will mostly be record companies benefiting from this change in law. But it's not a foregone conclusion. Anyone who wants to be an independent artist will benefit too. It's hard enough making a living as an artist, you know. Having your rights to your work guaranteed for the rest of your life helps, even if only a little.

And I'm one of those people who checks music CDs out of the library and rips them to mp3. I'm no saint about this either. But technically, I own those CDs in trust as a resident of this city--and if that weren't true, at least I view this situation as a sort of honor among thieves situation. Because I am a sometime artist myself and it's nice to know there is the option of legal recourse if someone blatantly steals my stuff.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Monument

(no subject)

from: marnanel
date: Nov. 27th, 2008 03:10 pm (UTC)
Link

I'm not arguing against copyright. I make my living from copyright. But when I stop working I'm not going to get paid, and nor will most people, and I don't see why musicians should be an exception. We're not talking about some poor sod who's worked at minimum wage for fifty years and then has no pension. If these people have been getting decent royalities for fifty years they should have been putting some of it aside. (And of course everyone should be getting decent state pensions anyway, but that's another matter.)

Reply | Parent | Thread

The Princess of Id

(no subject)

from: danaseilhan
date: Nov. 27th, 2008 02:38 pm (UTC)
Link

While I have disagreements with some of Clinton's beliefs, votes, etc., I felt she would have been at least as decent a President as her husband was. (Yes, he had his problems too. But America proved in their treatment of Jimmy Carter that they did not want a President with integrity.) I was livid at the way she was treated during the primary, beyond pissed off at her being turned into Obama's majordomo at his nomination, and when this news came up I was really happy for her. There is this narrative about women in politics that they "demand" things which men naturally consider their own due. Nobody accused George W. Bush of feeling entitled to the Presidency just because his daddy had attained it. They said things like that about Clinton, though. Bullshit.

I think Gates sounds like the most problematic potential Cabinet member at the moment--we haven't had confirmation from Obama that he has been brought on board. Overall, though, the whole point of the Cabinet is to be advisers to the President, so if he nominates inexperienced people for the purpose it's kind of self-defeating.

Reply | Thread

Grey Lib !

from: anonymous
date: Nov. 28th, 2008 09:27 am (UTC)
Link

Nothing wrong with greybeards !

Reply | Thread