Comments on: New French copyright law http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9232 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:45:22 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9232/comment-page-1#comment-56309 Reader's Write Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:15:35 +0000 #comment-56309 nterestingly, no one has anyone made a survey among creators (not corporations that pay for or somehow acquire or grab the works of creators) with these simple questions: - What is more important, that you get an incentive to produce or that your work is enjoyed by the people? - How do you prefer to see your work, DRM laced or free from DRM? - Should busineses decide for you if DRM is place on your work? - Should laws decide for you if DRM is place on your work? - Would like your work digitally distributed free to those that cannot or will not pay for it? ufortunately, no one cares what the artists think or feel... Scratch that... no one who matters cares what the artists think or feel. He who holds the $$ makes the decisions, or in the case of music, he who owns the rights makes the decisions. Artists don't own the rights to their own creations, and the gov't isn't going to care because they are owned by the corporations. The corporations will do whatever is in their best interest at the moment, and not look at the big picture, hence DRM and all the lawsuits. nterestingly, no one has anyone made a survey among creators (not corporations that pay for or somehow acquire or grab the works of creators) with these simple questions:
- What is more important, that you get an incentive to produce or that your work is enjoyed by the people?
- How do you prefer to see your work, DRM laced or free from DRM?
- Should busineses decide for you if DRM is place on your work?
- Should laws decide for you if DRM is place on your work?
- Would like your work digitally distributed free to those that cannot or will not pay for it?

ufortunately, no one cares what the artists think or feel… Scratch that… no one who matters cares what the artists think or feel.

He who holds the $$ makes the decisions, or in the case of music, he who owns the rights makes the decisions. Artists don’t own the rights to their own creations, and the gov’t isn’t going to care because they are owned by the corporations. The corporations will do whatever is in their best interest at the moment, and not look at the big picture, hence DRM and all the lawsuits.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9232/comment-page-1#comment-56206 Reader's Write Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:35:40 +0000 #comment-56206 "On the other hand, though, it might not because buried in it is a provision through which Apple, et al, could persuade record labels and artists to agree that if their music is sold on iTunes, it can't be converted to other formats." Great, but how will this woks out? What if the record company says yes to Apple but one of the other three parts (performer, songwriter) says no? And what if the song is "owned by several owners as a result of an estate division and one of them says no? Frankly, this is just another dumb and buried layer of complexity to the rights of authors. Now authors worldwide need to know French copyriright law.. or get simplified verbal (always verbal) and always wrong explanations from their publisher. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “On the other hand, though, it might not because buried in it is a provision through which Apple, et al, could persuade record labels and artists to agree that if their music is sold on iTunes, it can’t be converted to other formats.”

Great, but how will this woks out?

What if the record company says yes to Apple but one of the other three parts (performer, songwriter) says no?

And what if the song is “owned by several owners as a result of an estate division and one of them says no?

Frankly, this is just another dumb and buried layer of complexity to the rights of authors.

Now authors worldwide need to know French copyriright law.. or get simplified verbal (always verbal) and always wrong explanations from their publisher.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9232/comment-page-1#comment-56179 Reader's Write Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:49:03 +0000 #comment-56179 The French, Apple and almost everyone else ignore the basic purpose of copyright. Let's go over them. Copyright has one purpose: Create an incentive for creators, and this is THE MORE IMPORTANT PART, so that the public has access to more works made by the creators. If the purpose were not to include THE MORE IMPORTANT PART, "so that the public has access to more works made by the creators" the the purpose would make no sense at all. DRM clearly violates the purpose of copyrigt, the MORE IMPORTANT PART. This new French laws, obviously did not give any importance to THE MORE IMPORTANT PART of the purpose of copyright. Incredibly, no one, when writing about copyright and its many collateral issues never considere the purpose of copyright as I have describe it. Interestingly, no one has anyone made a survey among creators (not corporations that pay for or somehow acquire or grab the works of creators) with these simple questions: - What is more important, that you get an incentive to produce or that your work is enjoyed by the people? - How do you prefer to see your work, DRM laced or free from DRM? - Should busineses decide for you if DRM is place on your work? - Should laws decide for you if DRM is place on your work? - Would like your work digitally distributed free to those that cannot or will not pay for it? Let's get back to the basics! Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com The French, Apple and almost everyone else ignore the basic purpose of copyright. Let’s go over them.

Copyright has one purpose: Create an incentive for creators, and this is THE MORE IMPORTANT PART, so that the public has access to more works made by the creators.

If the purpose were not to include THE MORE IMPORTANT PART, “so that the public has access to more works made by the creators” the the purpose would make no sense at all.

DRM clearly violates the purpose of copyrigt, the MORE IMPORTANT PART.

This new French laws, obviously did not give any importance to THE MORE IMPORTANT PART of the purpose of copyright.

Incredibly, no one, when writing about copyright and its many collateral issues never considere the purpose of copyright as I have describe it.

Interestingly, no one has anyone made a survey among creators (not corporations that pay for or somehow acquire or grab the works of creators) with these simple questions:
- What is more important, that you get an incentive to produce or that your work is enjoyed by the people?
- How do you prefer to see your work, DRM laced or free from DRM?
- Should busineses decide for you if DRM is place on your work?
- Should laws decide for you if DRM is place on your work?
- Would like your work digitally distributed free to those that cannot or will not pay for it?

Let’s get back to the basics!

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9232/comment-page-1#comment-56160 Reader's Write Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:00:09 +0000 #comment-56160 Once government regulators take away a company's intellectual property rights and dictate that they must allow competitors to benefit from their creations, they break the cycle of innovation that benefits consumers by destroying the incentive companies have to create new and better products... This should read: Once government regulators modify a company's intellectual property rights to allow competition, they enforce the cycle of innovation that benefits consumers by destroying the incentive companies have to unfairly dominate others and force the entire evolution of society to occur in the manner that suits them most, requiring them to create new and better products. Once government regulators take away a company’s intellectual property rights and dictate that they must allow competitors to benefit from their creations, they break the cycle of innovation that benefits consumers by destroying the incentive companies have to create new and better products…

This should read:

Once government regulators modify a company’s intellectual property rights to allow competition, they enforce the cycle of innovation that benefits consumers by destroying the incentive companies have to unfairly dominate others and force the entire evolution of society to occur in the manner that suits them most, requiring them to create new and better products.

]]>