Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
Tougher law on Copyright wanted, poll finds
| Message Board > Found on the web > Tougher law on Copyright wanted, poll finds |
| _Griphin_ User Info... | http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=70343749-3ef4-4b3f-8701-e16366d9bf91&k=37338 Most Canadians want the country's political parties to implement stronger copyright laws so homegrown artists can't have their work ripped off by Internet downloaders, a new survey suggests. I'm totally for this, if the artists are to be paid rather then the farce that's happened with that CD taxation. I doubt any artists have been paid yet from that, and they've made tons of money from the taxation already. I'm all for these new rules, if the artists gets paid, but I dunno. - Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:00am | ||
| moron User Info... | This is a bullshit poll paid for by the CRIA. It has nothing to do with "helping the artists" and everything to do with keeping control of the distribution channel and price fixing. All of impartial studies have shown that Internet downloads have either neglible or a positive effect on purchasing habits. The majors want to have a handful of huge releases and not a large number of smaller releases since they make more money off of a single mega release than a bunch of moderately successful ones. They also want to sell you the same shit over and over which includes not letting copy the CD you just bought to MP3s so you can play it at work and in your car (as an example, that and fighting Apple was the reason for the whole XCP / Mediamax rootkit bullshit that just went down with Sony). If you really want to help artists fight against this sort of legislation (unless your idea of "artist" is Bryan Adams, Usher or Celine Dion). The whole point of this legislation is to make it hard for alternate distribution channels to exist and to control how new music can be heard. Cheers http://industrial.org - Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:28am | ||
| _Griphin_ User Info... | If they want to help out independant bands, then quit charging us $0.23 per CD with that stupid taxation on media. - Fri, 30 Dec 2005 4:56pm | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | Technically the charge per CD is a levy, not so much a tax, but I admit it feels the same when you're paying it. Monies have not been transferred to bands as yet even though its been collected for a number of years now. Even when it is paid out, last I heard they were going to use standard, old-fashioned 'air-play' equations to divy it up, which is bullshit of course. Also, myself not being a member of Socan, I can forget about ever receiving monies, or having myself exempted from the levy. If you are a police organization, or a church group however, there are immunity provisions. As for stronger copyright law, sounds like CRIA would like to follow all the RIAA bullshit going on down south. If anything *certain* copyright provisions should be loosened considerably to allow increased creative potential. Also, by definition a copyright should have a very specific validity period of time. Large publishers would much prefer that copyrights (and trademark/patents) extend to the end of time. US constitution doesn't directly support that so they're trying to get extensions which kick in to extend the period by another 10 years or whatever. Nothing will stop these extensions from continually expanding the date out to forever. (Albeit one step at a time) Most mainstream bands material is copyright held by the record company (ostensibly so it can be 'protected' on the artists behalf). Perhaps 5 or 6 years AFTER the work goes out of print, might the band get the rights back. I'd love to protect musicians as well, but I don't really trust others to do it for me. Trademarks, patents and copyrights mostly benefit the publishers. I'm keen to examine the usage of the GNU Public License for music (or copyleft). I wouldn't be able to stop someone publishing a modified version, but why would I want to stop that? The modified version would be required to remain free to use as well. I (and you) would continue to have the freedom to modify it. The copyright 'bargain' of today specifically prevents such modifications, and any notable products of that labour. In my opinion copyright does nothing but stifle creativity rather than allow it, which is rather opposite to the original intent during the printing-press era. See GNU website: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html - Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:12pm | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
