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

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:45:56 -0400
Brad Alexander <storm16@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
> >> over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
> >> reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
> >> cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
> >> who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
> >
> > The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a
> > small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their
> > creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered
> > to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
> > published. How many others did not make it?
> Agreed. I remember the hype about Napster in the late 90s. They did a
> study of how much the artist got from a $0.99 track. It turned out to
> be 1/10,000 of a cent.
> And there have been several cases where the labels have come down on
> the artists for releasing their own music on the internets. One was
> the Beastie Boys. They were threatened with legal action. The other
> was the group of artists that made the megadownload video/music. BMG
> was (illegally) going in to youtube and claiming copyright and pulling
> the ad down.

The artists are, and always have been, perfectly free to retain all
rights to their works and try to publish them themselves. It's entirely
their decision to sign away some or all rights to a publisher. To take
advantage of the publishers' advances (which, IIUC, are often never
recouped by the studios) and promotional investments and then, upon
success, to turn around and complain that they don't like the terms of
their contracts doesn't seem entirely fair.

I do know that the law does recognize that some contracts are
inherently unfair (in the US, contracts of adhesion, etc.), but in the
general case, I lean libertarian - if you don't like the terms of the
contract, don't sign it; either search for a better one, or strike out
on your own.


Reply to: