Klarinet Archive - Posting 000102.txt from 2010/07

From: Alexander Brash <brash@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] iTunes and mp3
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:53:16 -0400

Most people who create great things are incentivized by wanting to create great things - the profit is a side effect. For example, the iPad you typed your message on. You are trivializing a very complicated problem.

On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:

>
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The two things -- software patents and sheet music copyright -- are
>> different things, applied in different contexts, with different effects.
>> We're not talking about geese and ganders here -- this kind of blanket
>> assumption that creative works should automatically be propertized,
>> instead of thinking carefully about the benefits and consequences in
>> different use cases, is the real thing I'm arguing against.
>
> No, they are the same. Software is a creative endeavor just as music is. And conversely music is as structured as software. Both should be protected. Both should have a blanket assumption until the proprietor decides to remove it.
>
>
>>
>> I would caution you against making big assumptions about the incentives
>> and protections that developers need -- they're not the same as
>> performing musicians or composers or authors. In any case, where
>> protection of software developers is concerned, copyright already
>> applies and is widely considered to be sufficient.
>>
>> I can give you plenty more info if you're interested, but where software
>> patents are concerned this is maybe something we should move off list. :-)
>>
>> I'll leave this as a "take-home message" for the whole discussion --
>> don't just make assumptions about creative works being "property", or
>> that granting property-like rights is the best way to ensure future
>> creativity. Think carefully about the diversity of incentives that
>> people can have, about the diversity of ways that people can be
>> supported financially, and about the benefits and costs -- to the public
>> as well as creators -- of different ways of controlling the use of
>> creative works.
>>
>> It may be that creativity and the well-being of creative artists is
>> better supported by different means than we have been taught to
>
> No, if I compose a song, my creative work, it's my property. I spend hours and hours doing it. I have the right to decide its place out there. If i want to sell it, the i will. If i find someone ripping it off, i would pursue legal venues to get restitution. Until you can pull one of those fantasy "diversity of incentives" from your utopia and prove it can work just as well as the model we have now I think this is just BS. Your "take home message" is BS. There is little incentive to create if I'm not going to be able to profit from it. Unless you want to start giving out government grants to everyone who is an artist.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Klarinet mailing list
> Klarinet@-----.com
> To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
> http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com

_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org