quoted 2 lines Our paradigm is shifting. I'm affraid that copyright laws are a bit archaic> Our paradigm is shifting. I'm affraid that copyright laws are a bit archaic
> to handle new technologies. That was my "idiotic" point.
i see your point, & it sounds nice & all, but i wouldn't trash copyright
just yet if you want my opinion. it _is_ still the only way an artist
can hope to get payment for their work as a _composer_ (of course, a
performer & a producer needs a different kind of payment, but that's
easier to calculate; you count the hours it takes to do the job). the
laws may have to be updated to allow for sampling (i.e. broaden the
'fair use' definition, for example), to include 'copylefting'
(copyrighted public domain, so to speak), & perhaps to allow the
consideration of songs as whole concepts rather than as a collection of
hooks (which works for pop music, but not for anything beyond that.)
my point is the following: any artist has the right to either copyright
their works (actually, copyright is a given according to the law), or
leave it out in the open. removing copyright entirely for the sake of
freedom might sound nice in a vacuum, but we should all too well know
that in this world, an uncopyrighted song with any sales potential
_will_ be abused of at the expense of the artist, & without a single
apology from the culprits. if there were more than 5 major record
companies in the world, perhaps... (actually, there should be over
500... now, that sounds like a sane, healthy, competitive, democratic
number considering we live in a FREE ENTREPRISE world -- let me cough
some...)
--
david