Private copying is not preventing me from creating, the desire to communicate an original idea/ feeling is not based on wanting to generate revenue. Creativity is a limitless natural resource, sharing it with
all turns it into a regenerative energy.

I have control over the dissemination of my work, and share a little or as much i as want to. But the copyright laws are there to sustain a marketing industry and a star-system mining the quality of the canadian culture.

jean
PS:
“Access to more music makes the music better.”
I disagree, it makes the listener better, the music… it’s just a matter of taste!

If you think all people are dishonest thugs, please, speak only for yourself. It’s wrong. The way Magnatune makes money is by being honest: You know that 50% of the money goes to the artist. When you buy from EMI or any other of the big labels, you have no idea how much the artist gets, but it’s very likely much less. These major labels all explain that by the huge costs of “marketing”, which means “bribing radio station DJs”. Stealing from thugs is a lot more fun, so people do it.

I always wondered why should that be the case. Is it jealousy? Or what? We are all making money using someone else’s work. And not always we pay.

There are at least two different ways people “use” music. One is passive – like, selling it. Perhaps in this case the above statement can be partially true, although even then it is like assumed that selling is easy – but have you ever tried setting up a store, attracting customers, keeping with all the workflow, delivering the merchandise? Isn’t it work? Work that the original author did not care to do, did he?
The other way is active – like performing it, making covers and remixes. In this case I don’t understand why the original author must be paid at all.

The original authors should be paid either once or by some other system, but certainly not every time their work is used. When their work is used, they are not themselves working, are they? I really don’t get it.

we are, and always have been supportive of reasonable protection for trademark and copyright. we are trademark holders and content creators (butterscotch.com).

the irony in your comments is that in the case of personal names we are defending our rights from overreaching trademark lawyers who believe they “own” a surname to the exclusion of any other use.

in the case of music labels they are “defending” themselves from their customers. that is a mugs game that one can never win.

terry, you are exactly the type of person who should be embracing the future. you could help all sorts of the new generation of artists. if you have not already, I would encourage you to read this post by trent reznor (http://noss.or/nin) and to look at the work of companies like nabbr.com, which is now the 9th largest video site on the Internet (!), who are breaking acts totally outside of the malaise of radio.

canada has GREAT musical talent. the more its leadership looks to the past the worse we all will be.

I do appreciate you commenting though. thanks.

“The domain names that make up our Personal Names Service are critical business assets, and we will and do defend them when forced to do so.”

Now how about

“The music that makes up our recordings are critical business assets, and we will and do defend them when forced to do so.”

Hypocrites.

it will be very interesting to me to see what the feedback is. there were clearly a couple folks at the roundtable who did not think much of my views. I hope the read this piece and keep an open mind.

it is also worth noting that howard knopf wwas great today!

Hundred million dollar films simply won’t get produced if they show up on the Internet before they hit the theater on a regular basis. Publishers won’t give authors an advance if everyone downloads the book instead of buying enough copies to earn them a profit.

Yet as the public domain continues to diminish, with every idea, plot , etc. increasingly owned, creation of new works becomes more a legal issue than a creative effort.

The answer seems simple yet unspoken. Yes we need copyright, but for the original (i.e. right) reason and not the current system (wrong) system that has the incentives all wrong. We should not be offering incentives to milk one idea for a hundred years, we should nudging people to create on an ongoing basis. We need to return to short copyrights.

Think about it. If we returned to the 14+14 model that would allow enough time to release a movie, get all the box office money, the pay per view, dvd and tv royalties. Enough time to remainder the DVDs on the $5 rack at Walmart then release a 10th, 20th and 25th anniversary rerelease DVD/BD/nexgen and remainder all of that inventory before the copyright expired and everybody got to play around in the sandbox and mash it up into new stuff. If you haven’t broke even by then then you either suck or are an American film studio stiffing the actors who opted for a percentage of the profits.

And if we made that renewal at 14 years cost a non-trivial amount material that has little economic value would go on into the public domain fast enough to be perhaps be useful as raw material for someone else to build on. Think how much easier the Mystery Science Theatre folks would be able to get fodder for their comedy.

The current system is insane. No DVD will ever be public domain, the darned things don’t LAST a hundred years. I wouldn’t even put good money on being able to find a drive in a hundred years. As a general rule, unless you buy library trade copies most books published today don’t last that long either. I have never even seen anyone attempt to make the argument that the copyright on a hundred year old work is ‘promoting progress in science and the useful arts.’ or the similar phrase in Canadian law.