While I generally agree with the results of your thought of a very limited term, I disagree with the way it was reached. There's no reason to expect a person to get back what they would have earned working otherwise. It's always a risk and always will be, creating art for profit. And I certainly don't support even the potential of a 30-year copyright. That's how works disappear into the æther.
Seldom does somebody become a novelist by quitting their day job to spend three years on it. To expect art to be one's sole source of income is unreasonable, though certainly not impossible.
Since when is Pandora anything but wealthy, paying $600 million just to get lower prices on songs? We're looking at a fight between two juggernauts here, not a little guy and a behemoth.
You do realize that you are essentially describing concerts, right? You know, where musicians actually make money as opposed to record deals which usually land the artists deeply in debt when they don't pan out?
you're defending the broken business model over the one that works.
Who said anything about easy? I don't think artists should have it any easier than anyone else. If they want to retire, they should save for it like everyone else.
Tell you what. When I get a law that makes people keep paying me for work I did decades ago, maybe I'll be ok with songwriters getting the same privilege.
The claim seems to hinge upon the assertion by ASCAP that if Pandora is able to acquire a brick-and-mortar airwave radio station, it will cause "significant economic harm on ASCAP." The fundamental flaw with that argument is that ASCAP is not entitled to have a bad business model protected by the laws or courts. Nor is ASCAP entitled to block anybody from making moves that give them an improved position from which to bargain.
The best comparison I can think of comes from the airline business.
This reminds me of American Airlines trying to sue Southwest out of Love Field in the early 1970s with claims that allowing Southwest to operate out of Love would hurt the newly-opened DFW International Airport (indeed, trying to force Southwest into the agreement between all the other airlines of the day to abandon Love and move to DFW, Southwest's service not having existed when the agreement was forged), and the much more recent United opposing Southwest's plans to go international from Houston Hobby on the grounds that it would adversely affect United's bottom line. Thankfully, the latter was basically shot down by the City of Houston, but the American Airlines fight against Southwest's operation at Love raged on for decades, with Congress getting involved more than once.
I don't agree with abuse, but I'd certainly oppose putting Jane Austen on currency simply because I don't care for her novels. I'd rather see any number of other authors than Jane Austen.
The nation's founders were always skeptical of giving this much power and authority to a central government. Unfortunately, for a very long time, the people trusted the government more than any government should be trusted. To maintain a free society, it's imperative that the people always be wary of increases in the scope, size, and permanence of any and all government programs. And when there is too much government to keep track of, it's far too big for that to be possible.
Despite the fact that you're correct, I'm pretty sure the US would sign its own death sentence by even considering such an act in a way that became publicly known. Americans are pretty docile, but that would definitely spark a revolution.
We're close to 70 years later at this point. I think that given the generations involved in the previous war in question are gone or rapidly fading, we can pretty much safely say Japan isn't the Japan which attacked Pearl Harbor at this point.
Get this technology to the point of viable deployment and I'll gladly let it go to work. The human has to rely on experience, instinct, and knowledge. The 'bot can actually see what's going on in ways a human can't with the naked eye.
until such a time when they actually get their stuff blocked. Then you can bet your arse they will. Especially if you block alcohol-related websites in Britain.
I think it's far worse to assume that the US will not torture people. I'd like explicit promises even from trusted entities in such circumstance. A reiteration of policy in such circumstances is always welcome, especially if given with indication that the issuer both understands the assurance and demonstrates that it will uphold its promises.
Wait, as a Texan, why would you worry about our possible secession? even if Texas secedes, I suspect Texas will care a lot less about what the US does than you seem to think. There's really no incentive to attack, conspire against, or otherwise bother the United States from a Texan point of view. Maybe you're projecting the United States' desire to have a hand in everything under the sun on us?
Ah, but if they don't actually sell anything, they're not providing a "sale" in the legal definition. That's why it's not covered under a sales tax. Either tax services, or do not tax services. It's as simple as that.
There's not any news these days that I'd pay for. Fact is, 90% of what constitutes news, I don't care about. The other 10% doesn't get covered consistently by any source I'm familiar with that would make me feel justified in paying for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that is a sure fact. I'd love to see him perform.
While I generally agree with the results of your thought of a very limited term, I disagree with the way it was reached. There's no reason to expect a person to get back what they would have earned working otherwise. It's always a risk and always will be, creating art for profit. And I certainly don't support even the potential of a 30-year copyright. That's how works disappear into the æther.
Seldom does somebody become a novelist by quitting their day job to spend three years on it. To expect art to be one's sole source of income is unreasonable, though certainly not impossible.
Since when is Pandora anything but wealthy, paying $600 million just to get lower prices on songs? We're looking at a fight between two juggernauts here, not a little guy and a behemoth.
FFS, it's Volkswagen, with an E.
You do realize that you are essentially describing concerts, right? You know, where musicians actually make money as opposed to record deals which usually land the artists deeply in debt when they don't pan out?
you're defending the broken business model over the one that works.
Who said anything about easy? I don't think artists should have it any easier than anyone else. If they want to retire, they should save for it like everyone else.
Why are you assuming any reasonable amount of this money ends up in the pockets of the performers and writers?
Also, I do favour a limited-term copyright. but by limited, I mean very limited. We're talking somewhere in the range of 7-10 years.
Ah, but if they want to get paid, I do think they should continually have to write songs/perform/whatever other art they may produce.
Tell you what. When I get a law that makes people keep paying me for work I did decades ago, maybe I'll be ok with songwriters getting the same privilege.
The claim seems to hinge upon the assertion by ASCAP that if Pandora is able to acquire a brick-and-mortar airwave radio station, it will cause "significant economic harm on ASCAP." The fundamental flaw with that argument is that ASCAP is not entitled to have a bad business model protected by the laws or courts. Nor is ASCAP entitled to block anybody from making moves that give them an improved position from which to bargain.
The best comparison I can think of comes from the airline business.
This reminds me of American Airlines trying to sue Southwest out of Love Field in the early 1970s with claims that allowing Southwest to operate out of Love would hurt the newly-opened DFW International Airport (indeed, trying to force Southwest into the agreement between all the other airlines of the day to abandon Love and move to DFW, Southwest's service not having existed when the agreement was forged), and the much more recent United opposing Southwest's plans to go international from Houston Hobby on the grounds that it would adversely affect United's bottom line. Thankfully, the latter was basically shot down by the City of Houston, but the American Airlines fight against Southwest's operation at Love raged on for decades, with Congress getting involved more than once.
if ASCAP is against it, it must be a good idea!
The Cheney architecture was just the latest in a long list of such activities. FDR's government grew the executive power immensely as well.
I'm pro-madness. They had some pretty solid ska back in the day.
I don't agree with abuse, but I'd certainly oppose putting Jane Austen on currency simply because I don't care for her novels. I'd rather see any number of other authors than Jane Austen.
The nation's founders were always skeptical of giving this much power and authority to a central government. Unfortunately, for a very long time, the people trusted the government more than any government should be trusted. To maintain a free society, it's imperative that the people always be wary of increases in the scope, size, and permanence of any and all government programs. And when there is too much government to keep track of, it's far too big for that to be possible.
Despite the fact that you're correct, I'm pretty sure the US would sign its own death sentence by even considering such an act in a way that became publicly known. Americans are pretty docile, but that would definitely spark a revolution.
We're close to 70 years later at this point. I think that given the generations involved in the previous war in question are gone or rapidly fading, we can pretty much safely say Japan isn't the Japan which attacked Pearl Harbor at this point.
Get this technology to the point of viable deployment and I'll gladly let it go to work. The human has to rely on experience, instinct, and knowledge. The 'bot can actually see what's going on in ways a human can't with the naked eye.
until such a time when they actually get their stuff blocked. Then you can bet your arse they will. Especially if you block alcohol-related websites in Britain.
I think it's far worse to assume that the US will not torture people. I'd like explicit promises even from trusted entities in such circumstance. A reiteration of policy in such circumstances is always welcome, especially if given with indication that the issuer both understands the assurance and demonstrates that it will uphold its promises.
Wait, as a Texan, why would you worry about our possible secession? even if Texas secedes, I suspect Texas will care a lot less about what the US does than you seem to think. There's really no incentive to attack, conspire against, or otherwise bother the United States from a Texan point of view. Maybe you're projecting the United States' desire to have a hand in everything under the sun on us?
Ah, but if they don't actually sell anything, they're not providing a "sale" in the legal definition. That's why it's not covered under a sales tax. Either tax services, or do not tax services. It's as simple as that.
Any chance of getting a gigantic railgun anytime soon? As cool as this coiled object-chucker is, a railgun seems easier to aim.
There's not any news these days that I'd pay for. Fact is, 90% of what constitutes news, I don't care about. The other 10% doesn't get covered consistently by any source I'm familiar with that would make me feel justified in paying for it.