[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Re: Copyright

To: <brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [BRASS-BAND:3452] Re: Copyright
From: "Harry Ibbotson" <harry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:00:52 +0100
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <B7D53987.75F%mac@unclemac.co.uk>

Mac

You are probably correct saying that the publisher/recording company takes
the majority of the profit, but this has nothing to do with the desin of
copyright law.  It is the law of the business jungle which does it, just as
it gives most of the profit to supermarkets rather than farmers.

Copyright law gives initial ownership of copyright to the author.  The
publisher only acquires it by way of contract with the author.  Nothing
stops an author distributing his own works.  Hitherto costs have prevented
this, but new technology may change that per your final remarks.

It will be interesting to see if someone adopts your suggestion.

Finally I cannot possibly see how you can say that copying has done no harm.
Clearly a lot of companies and individuals have made a lot of money in spite
of piracy, but that is quite different from saying that piracy has done no
harm.

Just think how many more currently unknown artists/authors could be
recorded/published if all the loss of money to piracy were stopped.  I
recognise, of course, that we are discussing mainly individual piracy,
rather than that by the professional pirates.  I do not have any figures on
the relative scale of the two kinds, but I would be surprised if individual
piracy were not cumulatively significant.

Cheers
Harry

--

References:
- Re: Copyright
  - From: Colin McDonald

Prev by Date: 10 piece stuff & Orange Juice
Next by Date: Fwd: Appeal for players
Previous by thread: Re: Copyright
Next by thread: Re: Copyright
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread