Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 12:02 UTC
Multimedia, AV I generally need a billion words to explain the problems inherit in the current copyright system. Joss Stone needs just one minute. "I don't care how you hear it - as long as you hear it." Can we please appoint Ms Stone as supreme overlord of the universe?
Permalink for comment 459093
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

And I think it would be nice if I could make a living comparable with a middle-class job by decorating Christmas trees.

If you are honestly arguing that decorating a Christmas tree is comparable in skill and effort to producing music... wow.

Besides, Christmas trees seem like a bad analogy as it is a seasonal thing, and only part of the season. How about decorating homes? Whew! Boy, what a ridiculous thought, an actual profession, an actual industry, decorating homes. As if that would ever happen... ;)

Shall we now pass a law that everyone who decorates his tree in the same way as mine has to pay me?

I get what you're getting at here, i.e. required royalties for covering a song (at least I hope that's what you were getting at, otherwise your analogy is flawed). But we're talking personal vs. commercial use here. If I decorate my tree for my home (or sit down and play your song on my guitar), I don't go paying you for that. But if I decorate trees that are duplicates of yours - not just by coincidence - and go selling them, then I don't see it as unreasonable that for the duration of copyright (which is too long these days) that you should get some compensation for the design work that you did if you so wish it.

Though it does make me question the pay structure of royalties. As the songwriter has only a fixed, one-time cost in the effort it took to 'design' the song, perhaps royalties should be switched to a fixed, one-time cost?

Some things simply aren't worth a middle-class job, or aren't worth it any more. Plenty of job types have disappeared and turned into a hobby or part-time job because people no longer consider them as valuable as they used to be. It's called progress.

I call it a shame, but I'll everyone is certainly entitled to their own view on it. However, I would challenge yourself to only listen to music created by hobby/part-time artists for 3 months and see if you still feel the same way. If you do, I have nothing further.

That said, I do pay for the music I like, some of which I first obtained illegally. I strongly disagree with people who only pirate music so they don't have to pay for it even though they have the money to compensate the artist. By compensating the artist, you show your appreciation and encourage them to keep going - not for the money, but because they know people actually consider their creation valuable.

Well said, sir!

However, I refuse to listen to anything related to the RIAA as I think they are destroying our civilisation - just like some of those pirates are. Not because piracy is an economical issue, but because it's an emotional thing. If you spend a lot of time and effort creating something really nice and then you see a lot of people ripping it off without showing any sign of honest appreciation then common sense may get thrown out of the window. This is why the RIAA/MPAA can do the damage they do.

I won't get into the whole economical vs. emotional thing, but I agree the RIAA is having a detrimental effect.

Reply Parent Score: 1