3 ms·

>"Copyright has been abused to the point where it is more of a detriment than it is worth." Do you really believe that an artist who makes good money licensin

>"Copyright has been abused to the point where it is more of a detriment than it is worth." Do you really believe that an artist who makes good money licensing their music for use in TV or movies views copyright as "more of a detriment than its worth"? The only reason that revenue stream is possible is because of copyright and the sync royalties paid out on them. >"...but do you really believe copyright/patent law has somehow pushed forward innovation?" That's not the point I was making, my point was that it hasn't prevented musical innovation creatively. Not every instance of copyright usage is automatically detrimental to society.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> The only reason that revenue stream is possible Enforcement is not a requirement to possibility. Quite a few people make money with copyleft works. Even so, it is difficult, because strongly enforced copyright, and propaganda have created a culture that tries desperately to require copyright. > Not every instance of copyright usage is automatically detrimental to society. Of course not! But many are: I can't watch Netflix in 1080p using Linux because of DRM. Security research is illegal because of DRM. I can't start a P2P music streaming service like Spotify did, because I don't have the capitol to pay for licenses. Any innovation in this sector must be done by incumbents; who have already found success, and are more content with stability. I can't upload a video with fair use copyrighted content to Youtube, because Google has been bullied to/shows off their "capability" to weed out copyrighted content. That also sets an unfeasible precedent for competitors; who will never have the resources to do anything similar. s/I can't/Practically no one in the world is allowed to/ Something need not be 100% detrimental to be more detrimental than it is worth. Copyright is a clear example of that. It began somewhere near middle ground, but has since drifted extremely to the benefit of media corporations, and the detriment of everyone else.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"Enforcement is not a requirement to possibility." That statement is gibberish. Today an artists are able to get paid because their creative output becomes an asset by virtue of a copyright. An artists can and many do start their own publishing and record companies are fully in control of their copyright regime. >"I can't watch Netflix in 1080p using Linux because of DRM." DRM and copyright are orthogonal. >"I can't start a P2P music streaming service like Spotify did, because I don't have the capitol to pay for licenses." No you can go to Media Net and get your streaming service up and running pretty quickly for as little as $1K a month only increase royalties as your service grows. See: http://www.mndigital.com/ http://www.mndigital.com/

thomastjeffery 9y ago

> The only reason that revenue stream is possible Enforcement is not a requirement to possibility. Quite a few people make money with copyleft works. Even so, it is difficult, because strongly enforced copyright, and propaganda have created a culture that tries desperately to require copyright. > Not every instance of copyright usage is automatically detrimental to society. Of course not! But many are: I can't watch Netflix in 1080p using Linux because of DRM. Security research is illegal because of DRM. I can't start a P2P music streaming service like Spotify did, because I don't have the capitol to pay for licenses. Any innovation in this sector must be done by incumbents; who have already found success, and are more content with stability. I can't upload a video with fair use copyrighted content to Youtube, because Google has been bullied to/shows off their "capability" to weed out copyrighted content. That also sets an unfeasible precedent for competitors; who will never have the resources to do anything similar. s/I can't/Practically no one in the world is allowed to/ Something need not be 100% detrimental to be more detrimental than it is worth. Copyright is a clear example of that. It began somewhere near middle ground, but has since drifted extremely to the benefit of media corporations, and the detriment of everyone else.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"Enforcement is not a requirement to possibility." That statement is gibberish. Today an artists are able to get paid because their creative output becomes an asset by virtue of a copyright. An artists can and many do start their own publishing and record companies are fully in control of their copyright regime. >"I can't watch Netflix in 1080p using Linux because of DRM." DRM and copyright are orthogonal. >"I can't start a P2P music streaming service like Spotify did, because I don't have the capitol to pay for licenses." No you can go to Media Net and get your streaming service up and running pretty quickly for as little as $1K a month only increase royalties as your service grows. See: http://www.mndigital.com/ http://www.mndigital.com/