independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince & Copyright.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 06/15/13 8:57am

metallicjigolo

avatar

Prince & Copyright.

Tho this article does not mention Prince, it's gives a good insight why he is so passionate regarding the copyrights of all artists. Many people criticize Prince for the "lack of" u tube videos, and online presence but the fact is these online corporations are cheating artists.
Thoughts?.....

On Wednesday, June 5th, ASCAP President and Chairman Paul Williams delivered a powerful keynote to attendees of the CISAC World Creators Summit in DC. He spoke passionately and pointedly about what it means to be a creator in today’s challenging digital environment. Read the full text below. On the previous day of the Summit, ASCAP CEO John LoFrumento participated on a panel called “Visions for the Future – Different Perspectives for the Creative Sector,” which featured leaders from the creative industries discussing their visions for the years ahead.

*****

Hello everyone. I'm Paul Williams and I'm a songwriter. I know what it means to be a creator. I know what it means to be engaged in a profession that is fraught with uncertainty. Uncertainty is part of everyone's life, but it is a profound part of the creative life.

I face a blank page. Where will the next idea come from, the next song, the next line? Will I be able to make something out of the messiness of life that did not exist before – a song, a piece of music, art? All creators – writers, composers, painters, poets – daily face the uncertainty of a blank page. We dive deep, and come back up to the light of day with a form of expression that, hopefully, will bring meaning or knowledge or joy to those who experience it.

It is life-affirming work. Completing something new brings satisfaction to most creators. Then, reality sets in. More uncertainty. Will it get recorded, published, performed? Today, creators can find easy platforms for self-publishing and distribution. But that takes more work and more hustle and more investment in self-marketing.

Whatever way our work gets before the public, we're still faced with more uncertainty. Will the days, or months or years of work that led to this piece of art – whatever form it takes – bring success? Will it help me pay the rent? It takes a form of emotional courage to stake one's livelihood on such profound uncertainty. But that's what true creators do. We face uncertainty and we say "yes."

We say "yes" I can do this, I will take this chance, because if – and that's a very big "if" – if my work connects with an audience, then I will benefit from the fruits of my creative labor. I will be able to buy shoes for the kids and pay for health insurance. And that's because I live in a democracy that recognizes and protects the value of intellectual property.

Copyright is one of the most enlightened concepts to have emerged in the history of ideas. It encourages the creation of new works for the benefit of society by allowing authors to make a living from their creative labor. It is an idea that has proved its worth to every nation that has allowed the expression of its culture to flourish through exclusive rights granted for authorship.

Literature, music and art have value to individuals, to businesses and to countries. They open our hearts and minds. They inspire. They teach. They comfort. They drive economic growth and innovation. They define our time; they define our cultures; they bring us together.

So then, why are we now in the position of having to defend ourselves against the insidious erosion of the basic principles of copyright in so many parts of the world?

Intellectual property rights are a cornerstone of democracy. As a citizen, a creator and a consumer, I should have a reasonable expectation that I live in a society where thieves and outlaws are not allowed to run rampant – even when they are operating in cyberspace. But when lawmakers in North America and Europe tried to enact legislation that would help enforce laws against online fraud and theft, the technology sector said it would break the internet. They called it censorship.

Creators are in the business of free expression. Freedom of speech is about political speech, it is not about protecting fraud or theft. They trivialized what free speech means. Forces that want to control and diminish the value of our work for their own economic benefit are systematically attacking the rights of creators. They are methodically attacking the validity of copyright laws. They are building their businesses in a way that makes enforcement of our copyrights next to impossible.

The hope that creative work will pay off for the author, composer, filmmaker or photographer if it becomes successful is no longer a given. Fair payment has become another profound uncertainty in the professional life of every creator. This is true for people at the top of their game, and especially so for those just starting out. This is true globally – not just in the United States, in Canada, in the European Union – all over the world.

Some have argued, wrongly, that copyright stifles innovation. Copyright is the very definition of innovation. Copyright is the main driver of technical innovation – because people want access to great pieces of art, literature and music. Unfortunately, these arguments have resulted in legal decisions that are depleting copyright protections and sanctioning unfair business models that hurt authors.

I urge all of you to read Scott Turow's editorial in the New York Times, titled "The Slow Death of the American Author." It was triggered by the Supreme Court decision allowing the importation and resale of foreign editions of American works, at cheaper prices.

Which brings me to my next point. Wikipedia shut down for a day as a form of protest. Wikipedia could make their point to millions of people with one keystroke. They could say "no" to providing their service to everyone. Yet, we as creators have no opportunity to say "no." We cannot say "no" to infringing use of our works in any effective and meaningful way. We stand by as search engines make money from search and from advertising on illegal pirate sites. But it goes beyond piracy and it goes beyond the ineffectiveness of take-down notices as a way to enforce our rights.

In the online streaming world, songwriters and composers are being grossly underpaid for the music we write. Webcasters are rapidly becoming the preferred way people listen to music. Pandora alone – with 70% of the U.S. streaming market – just reported a 55% jump in revenues while creators are becoming impoverished – step-by-step. Even a major hit song streamed millions of times earns its songwriters so little, they couldn't hope to sustain a livelihood.

All we are asking for is honest pay for honest work. ASCAP, and I'm sure all of the collective rights groups at this conference, want to work with the digital platforms that depend on our music. We want to partner for our mutual benefit. We have successfully found our way with every new technology and delivery platform that has ever been invented – from radio to TV to cable to satellite. And we want to get there with all online streaming platforms.

But, we cannot accept payment that is so pitifully low as to be exploitative. Fair compensation in the online streaming market is probably the most pressing priority for performing rights organizations, both in the U.S. and abroad. The future of our livelihoods as creators will depend upon whether we can find global solutions that allow streaming business models to thrive without leaving us out in the cold.

We have some unique challenges in the U.S. with laws that have the effect of constraining our efforts. But we are actively engaged in finding ways to overcome these challenges on behalf of creators the world over. As PROs, we share this mission. We must continue our work together internationally to find a way forward that makes sense for digital platforms, and that ensures fair payment to songwriters, composers and copyright owners.

Creative works give soul to the machines. When our works are the engine driving huge profits for big businesses, we should expect to be treated justly and paid fairly. Creators need copyright protection and we need to be able to enforce our rights, especially when mega-corporations are exploiting them for profit.

As a member of the creative community, I am heartened to see that more and more of us are finding the courage to stand up and speak out. And it takes a lot of courage to speak out. It take courage for the many songwriters and artists who've risked the ire of the cyber-bullies when they've stood up for their right to be paid, or for their right to decide if and how they want to give their music away. All of us have to open our eyes a little wider, and we have to speak the truth a little louder. Whether we are songwriters, authors, photographers or filmmakers, we are part of the same family and we have to have each other's backs.

I am also encouraged that some lawmakers are courageous enough to stand up for creators' rights. We need their courage. Here in the U.S., we applaud the many Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees who continue to support creators' rights. We applaud the recent creation of the Creative Rights Caucus, and the continued good work of the Congressional Songwriters Caucus. We applaud people like our next speaker, John Morton, who is doing important work at ICE.

They understand that copyright is a human right. It is about the right to express yourself freely. It is about the right to choose what happens with your creative work. It is about the right – not the privilege – the right, to share in the economic benefits of the work you do. Protecting creative rights is the moral and ethical thing to do for all citizens.

We are not against technological innovation. We are innovators and we embrace new ways to bring our creations to as many people as possible. We embrace innovation that allows the creative professions to thrive along with the businesses that provide new platforms for distributing our works. Platforms designed to depress the value of our work are not innovative. They are exploitative. They exploit creative labor for their own selfish gain.

I want the next generation of creators – who will face the profound uncertainty of a blank page – to have this certainty…

That life as a professional is possible.

That if their works become successful, driving profits for others, they too will be able to share in that success.

That they, too, will be able to put food on the table and put their kids through college – as I have been lucky enough to do.

That they too will have the economic security to make the creation of exciting new works their full-time profession.

The future of the creative profession is at stake. I don't want to live in a world that only recycles the great works of art and literature and music from the past. I don't want to live in a world where the only new works of art are made by hobbyists in their spare time. All we ask is that we are treated justly and paid fairly. All we ask is that our own governments and courts remember that authors' rights need to be at the very center of every discussion about copyright.

The U.S. Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante has called for an overhaul of our Copyright Laws. Let's hope that what we end up with are revisions that strengthen the incentives for creators in today's world. We need to be able to enforce our rights and we need to be able to earn fair market value for our works. It's that simple.

In her own remarks, Maria quoted the Supreme Court in saying: "The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author's creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good."

If the creative professions cannot thrive, the world will be the poorer for it.

I've had a good ride. That's why I'm so passionate above giving the next generation a chance. I think about the young mother writing the next great novel at the kitchen table or composing music at a keyboard with headphones on while her baby's sleeping in the next room. Let's deliver the future to her.
[Edited 6/15/13 8:59am]
Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 06/15/13 11:46am

CharlieRise

avatar

I started blanking out about halfway through. It's the same garbage argument that's has been passed around for the past decade.

.

As if success for a musician was once guaranteed before the internet (it wasn't) and the only way they'll be able to eek out a living as a musician is by horribly lopsided legislation (it's not)

.

The wiki example is one of the worst. Yeah, they took their site down but guess what? But all of wikipedia is under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. That means I could copy all the articles from wikipedia I want, republish them on my site and I won't get sued if Wikipedia decides to be dicks for one day by pulling down their site (Prince, I'm looking at you when you put up free videos and DMCA anybody who tries to mirror it)

.

If you dislike the profit sharing with Pandora and the like - pull your content, get as many artists together as possible and start your own service. Oh wait, you still won't be getting megarich off of it and you'll have the added headache of maintaining it (look at Hulu as an example)

.

The point is, we're in a different world. All the legislation and stupid propaganda word games won't change that.

tonight the stars are out
there's music in the air
the sounds of joy and celebration
are drowning out despair
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 06/15/13 1:22pm

GuyBros

avatar

Wrong forum?

"I mean I always figured you were a trip at times, but now I'm beginning to believe you're a freaking vacation." -2elijah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 06/15/13 8:35pm

CocoRock

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 06/15/13 8:52pm

Frederick96

avatar

CocoRock said:

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/oatsuzn/fantasia.gif[/img:$uid]

hahahahahahaha

Love God and I shall 4ever Love u
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 06/15/13 9:41pm

metallicjigolo

avatar

CocoRock said:




My bad. lol
Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 06/15/13 11:02pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

That is one heck of a long speech. Half way through my eyes were starting to glaze over giggle

canada

Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 06/15/13 11:41pm

purplesnowlove

avatar

a prince news a day, keeps the doctor away prince
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 06/15/13 11:42pm

udo

avatar

luv4u said:

That is one heck of a long speech. Half way through my eyes were starting to glaze over

Modern attention spams are in decline.

That is a fact that is not to be laughed about.

It's a shame!

The core of the matter is that 'reform' of copyright law makes it even worse for the end users.

The copyright lobby will make sure that it happens that way.

The entity that calls itself USA is corrupt beyond repair: The copyright lobby made the authorities perform the illegal takedown of megaupload. There's still no case, nor a basis for a case w.r.t that matter. There is only a basis for a case for compensation of megaupload and Kim DotCom by the evil American and other foreign authorities for the damage done. Of course that won't happen.

This evil situation is not mentioned in the MSM so the public can remain in their sleep.

See http://Kim.com/whitepaper.pdf for the story in more detail.

Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 06/16/13 1:29am

Superconductor

avatar

I've read the speech to the end, no problem lol

The speaker conflates two related issues that require different approaches:
1. Copyright infringement through illegal downloading and file sharing by private individuals.
2. Fair compensation for creative work by legally operating entities such as music streaming sites and book publishers.
...every night another symphony...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 06/16/13 1:35am

SuperSoulFight
er

luv4u said:



That is one heck of a long speech. Half way through my eyes were starting to glaze over giggle


Mine too. I did finish it, but the author started to repeat himself, so you didn't miss much. I do agree that authors/artists should be properly payed, but I don't know enough about copyright laws to know who's right.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 06/16/13 4:38am

udo

avatar

SuperSoulFighter said:

I don't know enough about copyright laws to know who's right.

As copyright terms have only been extend and extended since copyrigth law came into being you now know who is rentseeking.

Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 06/16/13 1:42pm

CocoRock

metallicjigolo said:

CocoRock said:




My bad. lol

wink
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 06/17/13 5:39am

purple1968

purplesnowlove said:

-

[Edited 6/18/13 7:14am]

[Edited 6/18/13 7:16am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 06/17/13 6:35am

Marrk

avatar

purplesnowlove said:

lol why haven't i seen this before?! That could only be better if it used princebonics.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 06/17/13 6:56am

udo

avatar

CocoRock said:

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/oatsuzn/fantasia.gif[/img:$uid]

The epitome of the dumbification of the 'merican people.

It ain't funny, it ain't cool.

It shows in the non-impeachments, the non-reports, the non-action, etc.

Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 06/17/13 8:11am

RodeoSchro

I read it, and Paul Williams is spot-on. If you think he's wrong, go try and make a living as a recording artist and see how far you get.

If you think this stuff is "the same old BS" then you are clearly not an artist. My guess is that you are one whose music library consists of 10,000 songs you stole off the 'net, not paying a single dime for any of them.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 06/17/13 9:51pm

CocoRock

udo said:

CocoRock said:

[img:$uid]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/oatsuzn/fantasia.gif[/img:$uid]

The epitome of the dumbification of the 'merican people.

It ain't funny, it ain't cool.

It shows in the non-impeachments, the non-reports, the non-action, etc.

Actually, it's DAMN funny. Kinda like someone getting on their high-horse and responding to said funniness with a (most likely unironical) post featuring words that don't exist. razz

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 06/17/13 11:55pm

udo

avatar

CocoRock said:

udo said:

The epitome of the dumbification of the 'merican people.

It ain't funny, it ain't cool.

It shows in the non-impeachments, the non-reports, the non-action, etc.

Actually, it's DAMN funny. Kinda like someone getting on their high-horse and responding to said funniness with a (most likely unironical) post featuring words that don't exist. razz

You mention stuff that I did not argue about and you forget the words in the picture.

The general laziness when it comes to cognitive functions is frightening.

Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 06/18/13 12:14am

funkaholic1972

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

I read it, and Paul Williams is spot-on. If you think he's wrong, go try and make a living as a recording artist and see how far you get.

If you think this stuff is "the same old BS" then you are clearly not an artist. My guess is that you are one whose music library consists of 10,000 songs you stole off the 'net, not paying a single dime for any of them.

Amen to that!

It is so easy for people to dismiss having to pay for music just because you can download it for free, but would you be pleased if your boss or customers wouldn't pay you anymore for your products or services??? I don't think so.

Artists deserve a payment for the use of their works, just like anyone else gets paid for their work.

RIP Prince: thank U 4 a funky Time...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 06/18/13 9:53am

CocoRock

udo said:

CocoRock said:

Actually, it's DAMN funny. Kinda like someone getting on their high-horse and responding to said funniness with a (most likely unironical) post featuring words that don't exist. razz

You mention stuff that I did not argue about and you forget the words in the picture.

The general laziness when it comes to cognitive functions is frightening.

I don't know WTF that first part means, but the words in the picture I "forgot" are the reason for the picture, hence the comedic value that seems to be lost on you.

As for the "frightening" "general laziness when it comes to cognitive functions", I couldn't agree more. lol


udo said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

I don't know enough about copyright laws to know who's right.

As copyright terms have only been extend and extended since copyrigth law came into being you now know who is rentseeking.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 06/18/13 3:12pm

CharlieRise

avatar

funkaholic1972 said:

RodeoSchro said:

I read it, and Paul Williams is spot-on. If you think he's wrong, go try and make a living as a recording artist and see how far you get.

If you think this stuff is "the same old BS" then you are clearly not an artist. My guess is that you are one whose music library consists of 10,000 songs you stole off the 'net, not paying a single dime for any of them.

Amen to that!

It is so easy for people to dismiss having to pay for music just because you can download it for free, but would you be pleased if your boss or customers wouldn't pay you anymore for your products or services??? I don't think so.

Artists deserve a payment for the use of their works, just like anyone else gets paid for their work.

I agree. Artists should be able to get entire sites pulled down at their whim with the burden of proof on the site owner. While we're at it, let's let them destroy emerging businesses in the name of control and profit...

...

wait a second, that would be fucking retarded.

.

Does nobody remember the entertainment industry fighting literally every new advancement throughout their entire existance?

.

.

The past 100 years have seen a vast array of technical advances in broadcasting, multiplication and transmissions of culture, but equally much misguided legislators who sought to preserve the old at expense of the new, just because the old was complaining. First, let’s take a look at what the copyright industry tried to ban and outlaw, or at least receive taxpayer money in compensation for its existence:

It started around 1905, when the self-playing piano was becoming popular. Sellers of note sheet music proclaimed that this would be the end of artistry if they couldn’t make a living off of middlemen between composers and the public, so they called for a ban on the player piano. A famous letter in 1906 claims that both the gramophone and the self-playing piano will be the end of artistry, and indeed, the end of a vivid, songful humanity.

In the 1920s, as broadcast radio started appearing, another copyright industry was demanding its ban because it cut into profits. Record sales fell from $75 million in 1929 to $5 million four years later — a recession many times greater than the record industry’s current troubles. (Speaking of recession, the drop in profits happened to coincide with the Great Depression.) The copyright industry sued radio stations, and collecting societies started collecting part of the station profits under a blanket “licensing” scheme. Laws were proposed that would immunize the new radio medium from the copyright industry, but they did not pass.

In the 1930s, silent movies were phased out by movies with audio tracks. Every theater had previously employed an orchestra that played music to accompany the silent movies, and now, these were out of a job. It is quite conceivable that this is the single worst technology development for professional performers. Their unions demanded guaranteed jobs for these performers in varying propositions.

In the 1940s, the movie industry complained that the television would be the death of movies, as movie industry profits dropped from $120 million to $31 million in five years. Famous quote: “Why pay to go see a movie when you can see it at home for free?”

In 1972, the copyright industry tried to ban the photocopier. This push was from book publishers and magazine publishers alike. “The day may not be far off when no one need purchase books.”

The 1970s saw the advent of the cassette tape, which is when the copyright industry really went all-out in proclaiming their entitlement. Ads saying “Home taping is killing music!” were everywhere. The band Dead Kennedys famously responded by subtly changing the message in adding “…industry profits”, and “We left this side [of their tape] blank, so you can help.”

The 1970s also saw another significant shift, where DJs and loudspeakers started taking the place of live dance music. Unions and the copyright industry went ballistic over this, and suggested a “disco fee” that would be charged at locations playing disco (recorded) music, to be collected by private organizations under governmental mandate and redistributed to live bands. This produces hearty laughter today, but that laughter stops sharp with the realization that the disco fee was actually introduced, and still exists.

The 1980s is a special chapter with the advent of video cassette recorders. The copyright industry’s famous quote when testifying before the US Congress – where the film lobby’s highest representative said that “The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone” — is the stuff of legend today. Still, it bears reminding that the Sony Corp of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and that the VCR was as near as could be from being killed by the copyright industry: The Betamax team won the case by 5-4 in votes.

Also in the late 1980s, we saw the complete flop of the Digital Audio Tape (DAT). A lot of this can be ascribed to the fact that the copyright industry had been allowed to put its politics into the design: the cassette, although technically superior to the analog Compact Cassette, was so deliberately unusable for copying music that people rejected it flat outright. This is an example of a technology that the copyright industry succeeded in killing, even though I doubt it was intentional: they just got their wishes as to how it should work to not disrupt the status quo.

In 1994, Fraunhofer Institute published a prototype implementation of its digital coding technique that would revolutionize digital audio. It allowed CD-quality audio to take one-tenth of the disk space, which was very valuable in this time, when a typical hard drive would be just a couple of gigabytes. Technically known as MPEG-1 Audio Layer III, it was quickly shortened to “MP3” in everyday speak. The copyright industry screamed again, calling it a technology that only can be used for criminal activity. The first successful MP3 player, the Diamond Rio, saw the light in 1998. It had 32 megabytes of memory. Despite good sales, the copyright industry sued its maker, Diamond Multimedia, into oblivion: while the lawsuit was struck down, the company did not recover from the burden of defending. The monopoly middlemen tried aggressively to have MP3 players banned.

The century ended with the copyright middlemen pushing through a new law in the United States called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which would have killed the Internet and social media by introducing intermediary liability — essentially killing social technologies in their cradle. Only with much effort did the technology industry manage to stave off disaster by introducing so-called “safe harbors” that immunizes the technical companies from liability on the condition that they throw the end-users to the wolves on request. The internet and social media survived the copyright industry’s onslaught by a very narrow escape that still left it significantly harmed and slowed.

Right after the turn of the century, the use of Digital Video Recorders was called “stealing” as it allowed for skipping of commercials (as if nobody did that before).

In 2003, the copyright industry tried to have its say in the design of HDTV with a so-called “broadcast flag” that would make it illegal to manufacture devices that could copy movies so flagged. In the USA, the FCC miraculously granted this request, but was struck down in bolts of lightning by courts who said they had way overstepped their mandate.

What we have here is a century of deceit, and a century revealing the internal culture inherent in the copyright industry. Every time something new appears, the copyright industry has learned to cry like a little baby that needs more food, and succeeds practically every time to get legislators to channel taxpayer money their way or restrict competing industries. And every time the copyright industry succeeds in doing so, this behavior is further reinforced.

Get with the times or get out the way!

[Edited 6/18/13 15:16pm]

tonight the stars are out
there's music in the air
the sounds of joy and celebration
are drowning out despair
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 06/18/13 9:37pm

udo

avatar

CharlieRise said:

Get with the times or get out the way!

Which implies?

That it's all good what your puppet leaders put onto you?

That they tell you all you need to know?

You may need to think a bit more critically every now and then.

Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 06/19/13 11:09am

Tremolina

udo said:

CharlieRise said:

Which implies?

That it's all good what your puppet leaders put onto you?

That they tell you all you need to know?

You may need to think a bit more critically every now and then.



Uhm I think CharlieRise is on the same page as you, udo.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 06/19/13 2:25pm

udo

avatar

Tremolina said:

udo said:

Which implies?

That it's all good what your puppet leaders put onto you?

That they tell you all you need to know?

You may need to think a bit more critically every now and then.



Uhm I think CharlieRise is on the same page as you, udo.

I did not see that in the words, as it looked like english to me.

I see the times as what they put onto us, not as what we make it to be.

Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 06/20/13 9:33am

Tremolina

udo said:

Tremolina said:



Uhm I think CharlieRise is on the same page as you, udo.

I did not see that in the words, as it looked like english to me.

I see the times as what they put onto us, not as what we make it to be.



Uh okay.

So tell me udo, would you happen to be the owner of any valuable copyrights yourself?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 06/20/13 9:46am

udo

avatar

Tremolina said:

udo said:

I did not see that in the words, as it looked like english to me.

I see the times as what they put onto us, not as what we make it to be.



Uh okay.

So tell me udo, would you happen to be the owner of any valuable copyrights yourself?

Nope, I do not think so. Not in the `modern` traditional sense.

I do not make music although I could claim copyright on some music related stuff.

I do not write (as in books etc).

I do not paint, draw, design.

Most stuff I release is `as is`. Sorta creative commons.

So the only recognised valuable assets I own are physical.

Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 06/20/13 9:49am

Tremolina

udo said:

Tremolina said:



Uh okay.

So tell me udo, would you happen to be the owner of any valuable copyrights yourself?

Nope, I do not think so. Not in the `modern` traditional sense.

I do not make music although I could claim copyright on some music related stuff.

I do not write (as in books etc).

I do not paint, draw, design.

Most stuff I release is `as is`. Sorta creative commons.

So the only recognised valuable assets I own are physical.



Suppose you would be a songwriter for a living and you would have been responsible for writing a couple of hit songs that are being played, copied and sold all over the world.

Would that matter?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 06/20/13 3:23pm

RodeoSchro

CharlieRise said:

I agree. Artists should be able to get entire sites pulled down at their whim with the burden of proof on the site owner. While we're at it, let's let them destroy emerging businesses in the name of control and profit...

Ridiculous.

The issue is, should the person who created something be paid for it?

More to the point - is it right for someone else to take that creation, which is for sale, without paying for it?

I don't care what times you are referring to - taking something without paying for it is theft.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 06/20/13 10:26pm

udo

avatar

Tremolina said:

Suppose you would be a songwriter for a living and you would have been responsible for writing a couple of hit songs that are being played, copied and sold all over the world.

Would that matter?

Sure.

To a certain extent.

I do not need protection of my supposed copyright for absurd lengths of time.

I will save for my pension from my income. My children can take care of themselves.

Pills and thrills and daffodils will kill... If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince & Copyright.