Legal Question about a certain item. Dancers.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

That distinction you mentioned may be very relevant to the copyright lawmakers, who struggle to make sense of just how the law should wrestle with this newfound "ability" of people to easily find and infinitely reproduce anything they want. But we're not the lawmakers here, so what's it to us?

 

A reproduction is a reproduction is a reproduction. It's as if, in your travel example, I offered you a practical and convenient way to instantly teleport wherever you want by merely clicking a button.  Should the law then sternly step in, and PROTECT the rights of the cabbies? Now that you don't have to walk,  you don't need their outdated middle-man services for your travel. Should there be a forced legal distinction between "travel" and "teleporting"? Think about all the hard workers in China, in the automotive industry and many others, whose cute chinese families will have nothing to eat if you stop paying your cab fare...

 

But let's be realists, the question with lawmakers usually isn't "should we", but rather "how much are the cabbies paying".  They're paying pretty good these days, it turns out. And many people are buying it.

---

A performance isn't a reproduction.   A reproduction of a performance is a reproduction.   And a reproduction of one singer singing a song isn't the same as a reproduction of another singer singing it -- they are two different things.    

That's why Lady Gaga can expect to sell far more tickets for one of her concerts than could a tribute act singing the same songs, and why Lady Gaga can expect to sell far more copies of a recording of her singing her songs than could the tribute act expect to sell of their version, even though the songs they're singing are completely the same.

What it comes down to is whether or not you think performers and composers should get paid for their work and, if you do, where you think the money should come from to pay them.

[Vegro Solari]

A technology that allows easy access to and the infinite replication of desirable things, including the means of production, is a revolutionary technology. Not in the buzzword sense, but in the sense of the old order being completely overthrown, for better or for worse.

Modern "copyright" can be understood and seen as a desperate, spastic attempt to stop, curtail that revolutionary effect, and retain the old order in some adapted form. The bread factory must remain! How can we kings continue to run the world without it? When the entire society is built around scarcity, competition for resources, you cannot handle a technology that allows magical superabundance to flourish on the internet.  When it was only music, OK that's sad for the record industry, but not a big deal. But now it's government secrets!  Information is actually getting to be free, and this cannot be allowed to continue, if the old order is to stand. One reason that the government is for the most part allied with the recording industry and other such lobbies, is that government interests are similar to those of the industry, and at odds with the interests of the people at large when it comes to the internet.

My favourite part in all of this are the wonderful people that argue that doing only what you're told in this complex situation (with many opportunities and pitfalls) is everyone's moral duty!

[Vegro Solari]

Innula!  Please! The eventual reduction of everything to some semblance of capitalist absurdity is truly the last thing that ought to be on our minds today, when we're called to become the unwitting witness of that ugly giant's slow, agonizing death.

In order to pay an artist, you just give them some money.  That has never been the problem.

Your question should read:  "How would the record industry continue to force us to give it more money so that it would be able to pay minimal wages to the so-called artists it hired if no one is buying the overpriced records they produce together?"

Someone can come right back at you and inquire just why would anyone care about the record industry's problems. Poor darlings, the extortion scheme they run on you and me isn't working out so good any more? Call in the "moral duty" people, we have to build awareness for this tragic situation.

[161488303349]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

When it was only music, OK that's sad for the record industry, but not a big deal. But now it's government secrets!  Information is actually getting to be free, and this cannot be allowed to continue, if the old order is to stand. One reason that the government is for the most part allied with the recording industry and other such lobbies, is that government interests are similar to those of the industry, and at odds with the interests of the people at large when it comes to the internet.

My favourite part in all of this are the wonderful people that argue that doing only what you're told in this complex situation (with many opportunities and pitfalls) is everyone's moral duty!

---

like how do you extrapolate ripping off a person who makes a vid of a song they wrote into some other person accessing government secrets. I dont see what is the connection that enables you to make this jump

+

when you say that government interests are at odds with the interests of the people at large can you be more specific about what you mean?

can understand the argument for privacy when it comes to accessing your personal data and legal preventions to stop govt/biz snooping on peoples activities, but what does that have to do with ripping digital art off an artist? 

[Vegro Solari]

16, maybe you're unaware that in the aftermath of the WikiLeaks scandal,  the data they published was pulled from Amazon and other data hosting providers using, essentially, a copyright-based legal argument. The government said that they did not give their permission to publish those copyrighted incriminating documents revealing their corruption, to WikiLeaks or their sources. They  were able to DMCA them off the internet in most cases.

It happened, but - don't forget, those laws will really need to be much tougher going forward, to help protect the artists you love and the children.

[161488303349]

yes I understand how existing laws can be abused by orgs/govs/people with vested interests

am just trying to understand your reason for equating this to ripping vids

you seem to be saying now that bc govt appears to have abused the law in the wikileaks case then we should not have copyright law at all? is that right?

if so then how do we protect artists? say for example like in SL from copybotters? if there was no copyright/dmca/etc? do we just accept that is more important for us to stop the greater abuses of big biz/gov and that the price for that is to be paid by the artists?

or are you thinking that the rights to publish copyrighted works cannot be owned by/vested in a body. like only in a actual person?

I think sometimes when we chat about copyright then often end up chat about two different things and gets a bit mixed up sometimes. copyrights and publishing rights

[Vegro Solari]

16, I admire you, you talk like a human. More than me, for example. When you were a toddler growing up, did your parents shield you from people that shout "Don't touch! Not yours!!!"  and let you explore ?

It's not up to you and me to decide how things should be, but that feeling, when you're lost and are grasping on your own for a difficult ethical solution, is important for a person to eventually grow the big balls and become a "decider".

[161488303349]

I pretty much decide things on a practical level

like if you do A then what is the outcome. what is the outcome if you do B. same C and so on

dont much get into philosophical/belief ways of thinking much. is kinda broad brush that way most times I find. like is no practical outcomes most times when i end up in these kinds of chats. not ones that can be measured

cant know every outcome every time but i try be practical about that as well and just go for the most likely outcome that will most likely benefit more people more of the time than any of the other ways

+

just want to say again that the interwebz is the great enabler i think. as more and more new media/interwebz channels open up to artists then they will have more opportunity to self-publish. that the important thing i think. one day soon i hope then wont be any need for oldcentury style 'publishers' who demand artistic/editorial control over the artists works. this last is the heartbreaker for many artists. that and the money

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

Innula!  Please! The eventual reduction of everything to some semblance of capitalist absurdity is truly the last thing that ought to be on our minds today, when we're called to become the unwitting witness of that ugly giant's slow, agonizing death.

In order to pay an artist, you just give them some money.  That has never been the problem.

---

 I know, as do lots of people, how to download music and movies from The Pirate Bay.    What I'm less clear about is how I "just give"  the artists "some money" after I've done that bit.  

Could you please advise me on how to do this, and suggest an appropriate sum to give them?

[Vegro Solari]

That's a great question Innula. I really take it seriously and think about that too. The wise used to say, you should give whatever you can, and give generously of it. So if you have only little, then give generously of your little bit. Without trying to match or outdo others who may have more than you to give, and without giving everything so that you yourself run into the food trouble you wanted to save your artist from.

And if you really miss that feeling of a bloodsucking parasite entity forcing you to give, then taking the lion's share of what you give for itself, (not likely right?)  -  you can ask the artist if they want you to pay their recording company too or not. 

 

 

[Feldspar Millgrove]

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

If somebody took the cookies from you, you'd have less cookies than before. But. if someone sings or uses your song in SL, you know what? You have one more fan in the world, and many more listeners

---

Each of whom was supposed to pay for a copy of the song - the uploader has deprived you of your income, taken money right out of your pocket.  How is this different than the stolen cookies?  Or do you think that artists should not be paid for their work?

[161488303349]

---

Feldspar Millgrove wrote:

---

Vegro Solari wrote:

If somebody took the cookies from you, you'd have less cookies than before. But. if someone sings or uses your song in SL, you know what? You have one more fan in the world, and many more listeners

---

Each of whom was supposed to pay for a copy of the song - the uploader has deprived you of your income, taken money right out of your pocket.  How is this different than the stolen cookies?  Or do you think that artists should not be paid for their work?

---

tbf Vegro has said that artists can be paid. publishers even as well sometimes

like they should get paid according to the value that the buyer puts on the piece and not by the value that the seller does. ie if the buyer thinks the piece is worthless then they should be able to get if they want anyways and pay nothing

is kinda naïve that way I think. or innocent maybe. Vegro chat a lot about babies and children. so maybe is more innocence than anything else. or maybe to many star trek movies q: (:

+

or is maybe that Vegro equate the evols of the marketplace with capitalism with a big C

is going way off topic but big C capitalism is a economic theory of fairly recent historical development. same like Marxism with a big M

today is general thought/conscious that somehow both these theories were/are attempts to explain the dynamics/mechanics of the marketplace in the industrial age

the thing is tho (I think) is that both these theories are not really about the market place. they about industrialisation. or more correct the generation and distribution of wealth produced by an industrial society

I think as well what sometimes we can forget is that there has always been a marketplace central to human affairs since the caves. a buyer and seller. sometimes for barter or swap. sometimes for coin. has never been a sustainable society in which there has only ever been prices set by the buyer

is doable that way tho. and has been tried. like it works good if you got a big gun and you point it at the seller

the alms method can also work. like shake your begging bowl or put out a tip jar. can work good sometimes this as well for for some individuals and charities even. but is not sustainable. not on a society-wide basis anyways in terms of distribution of wealth

can make a academic model where it could work but in practice it never goes the way of the model. none of them do really

can ask Alan Greenspan about economic modelling of human behaviour. he cried at the committee hearing when he had to acknowledge that his model got broken by people he thought was his friends and of the same mind as him and believed in the model. they didnt believe in anything as it turned out.. they was only in it for the money

+

so anyways. we kinda stuck with the buyer and seller reaching an agreement over how much will be paid. we stuck with it bc history shows that this the best way. out of all the possible ways we tried already