Weblog:   The Right Term is Copyright Infringement
Subject:   authors should hold copyright
Date:   2002-12-18 06:12:31
From:   mentata
The premise of this article is a clear indication to me that the author of a work, not some corporate sponser, should hold copyright.

The music industry is complaining of piracy, not copyright infringement. They are "losing money" because people are duplicating their products, not because anybody is claiming the artistry of the works to be their own. Many of the artists were actually pleased by the existence of Napster, because it gave them exposure. It would've been different if people were pulling their songs down and shopping them as demos of their own work (copyright infringement by *my* definition), but people respected the musicians.

After years of escalating abuse from a corrupt industry, consumers have little respect for the RIAA. Is there any reason a CD should cost as much as a DVD? Has the music gotten better? Is it fair for companies like Sony to keep all rights to a song for longer than a writer gets for his/her words? No. It's otherwise because of strong, well-funded lobbying efforts, not justice.

Radio is a bad example of progress. Any benefits from compulsory licensing were diminished by payola, a disgusting practice created by the recording industry (which they now protest because it costs them too much). Now the RIAA is going after independent internet broadcasters to regain control of the airwaves. Long live music piracy; I have no sympathy.

An artist should produce because they are compelled to, and share because they want to. They should get credit (copyright), and if they can sell what they make, good for them. But the rhapsodists, those that pretend to own somebody else's work and gain disproportionate benefit from it, can be thrown out of the Republic for all I care.

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • authors should hold copyright
    2004-01-18 15:09:27  anonymous2 [View]

    Oh, this is a great addendum to the idjut who thinks I create because
    I'm compelled to.

    No, buttholio, I write and create because I want to make money from it,
    that is, I want to make a living by doing it and not have to work for
    minimum wage, get it, stupid?

    Four syllable words like "replicators" is a crock. People who replace
    the word "create" with the word "replicate" belong in Orlando, dancing on
    stage for Mickey Eisner, under the auspices of the once great, but now
    dead and buried Walt Disney.

    Uncle Walt was a great guy; Mickey Eisner and his ilk are a bunch of
    stealing " . . . . " and the people who perform in Disneyworld are more
    like trained monkeys than talents.

    Talent is born, not taught on an Orlando stage.

    "An artist should produce because they are compelled to" this is the
    unthought-out babblings of an Orwell-ignorant 3rd grade dropout, or, a
    graduate of a Georgia college (same difference, same SAT scores!)

    "They should get credit (copyright), and if they can
    sell what they make"

    - no, Bimbo, I pay $30.00 to register the songs exclusively as the sole
    Copyright Owner, look me up, http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html
    by typing in "James, Terry" in the Search box. That's why I get paid for
    creating things, not because I "may" be able to sell what I create.

    Let's see, in addition to working many 18 hour plus a day jobs, seven
    days a week, 52 weeks a year, I hold three college degrees, speak four
    languages, am a top computer design engineer, including having designed
    the computer you're typing on [but of course, you'll deny that, you have
    to because no one can possess that much talent and intelligence, right,
    Babu?] and have a unique genetic code which seems to have kept me out of
    the hospital all of my life and slowed the aging process by at least 200

    I try to help every mom and dad who the RIAA is picking on because it is
    actually the RIAA that is the copyright infringer and I am preparing a
    law brief asking for their arrest [oh yeah, by the F.B.I. no less!] and
    have well over three inches of evidence against them. And the RIAA,
    sweethearts, is not some nameless entity, it is the publishers who work
    for the likes of Madonna, Bowie, Speers [or however she spells her name,
    the English spell it the way I do], Specter, and all the C&W, Rap and
    Crap artists, et ux. It is not a bunch of guys in business suits who are
    agents in "The Matrix," but well hidden celebrities out to make trouble
    for independent and up and coming true talents [which the aforementioned
    are definitely not, having bought or outright stolen most of the
    material, songs, and alleged creations they hold copyrights on].

    As they are so prone to say in the business, if you don't like what I say
    about you 'donna, Sue Me!

    Terry James
    or, I own Musics.com Musics.net and Musics.org
    or you can find me on ASCAP
    and The Philadelphia Poets' Society
    and, a helluva lot of other places where true art grows!

    I want to make noise so you will stop to listen to the music!

    Terry James

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.