Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (
More info?)
I know your post is intended to be "satirical" but I'm not sure I
believe in patents either. You are correct in saying patents are
derivative of many different sources than just the individual from whom
the idea came.
As far as books go, I can just go to the library and check them out for
free. It's great! Who "rents" books? I understand paying for a
service (like Netflix which sends you DVDs via the mail or going to a
movie where you sit down in an A/C'ed room to watch on the big screen),
but I can also go to the library and check out CDs, DVDs and VHS tapes
for free! And that is totally legal.
Also, a lot of people have software and circuit design for free. This
is the whole concept behind the open source movement.
And by the way, musicians teach. My family is entirely comprised of
musicians and artists, all of whom teach or have taught. Your argument
is akin to saying "those who can, do; those who can't, teach". Yet I
took guitar lessons for two years with a national champion flatpicker.
Obviously, he "could", but also taught. Some view teaching as an
integral part of fulfilling ones duty and role in society.
Tangible things can be stolen, but I'm not sure that you can "steal"
ideas or intangible things. It's like saying you're stealing the color
green. It doesn't make sense. And no, I don't think I'm entitled to
your work, but neither do I think you are solely entitled to it either.
I don't think anyone is entitled to ideas. Ideas are perhaps
un-entitleable (if that's a word).
Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq
Michael wrote:
> In article <1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@teranews>,
> declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu says...
>
>>Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright
>>laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas or
>>intangible things like chord progressions or voicings in a specific song
>>or arrangement. Music is so derivative anyway I feel noone can claim
>>the complete right of ownership to a recording or composition because so
>>much in any recording or composition is stolen from hundreds of other
>>recordings or compositions.
>
>
> Call me crazy, but I'm not sure I totally believe in patent laws.
> I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas. Patents are
> so derivitive anyway. Why should we pay to see a movie? Why should
> we pay to rent a book? Directors can make their money off teaching,
> performing(?), just like writers. Why isn't ciruit design free? It's
> just artwork, right?
>
>
>>I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
>>performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
>>jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
>>think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
>>costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.
>
>
> Musicians make music. TEACHERS teach, ENGINEERS engineer, etc.
> Just because technology has made it easy to steal a musician's work
> (and now film-makers as well) doesn't make it RIGHT! You're not
> entitled to the fruits of my work just because it's easy to steal.
> It's easy to steal oranges out of an orchard too, but it ain't right.
> The thieves of this world are going to make us pay for EVERYTHING
> on the net eventually, by their actions. People whose hard work is
> ripped off aren't going to stand for this forever, so eventually
> this Good Thing will come crashing to an expensive end.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram