RE: [microsound] industry loses big

["Scott Carver" <fscthaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jan.l [mailto:jl@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:16 PM
> To: microsound
> Subject: RE: [microsound] industry loses big
>
>
>
> And since banks no doubt are robbing money from their customers makes it
> perfectly o.k. to go buy a gun from a guy in some alley and start
> robbing banks.
>
> Actually there are groups that do just this. Mayne you should join?
>
> You may claim you dont like the copyright laws and that makes
> piracy o.k. I
> might declare I beleive that private property are wrong and take
> your laptop and
> it would be equally o.k.
> Actually the copyright laws are there to protect the artist. It
> makes sure that
> Dow Chemical cannot use my music in their ads or presentation
> material.

In the U.S., at least (where much of the music piracy conflict seems to be
centered), this is not the case. U.S. copyright law is intended to provide
rewards for people who create (artists, scientists, etc), because promoting
creations of these sorts is better for society as a whole. Copyright laws
are /not/ in place to protect the artist, only to reward the artist, and as
a result provide a wider variety of artistic works to the public. A
reproduction of a copyrighted work is vastly different, in this system at
least, from a privately possessed laptop. The claim many make is not so much
that they don't like copyright laws: rather, it is that copyright laws as
they currently stand, do not even remotely accomplish what it is they were
created to do, and so are not justified.

Many European countries consider the right to control intellectual property
a natural right, though. I'm unsure exactly how this is argued, but I would
be curious to know. On one hand, I do feel that I, as a person who enjoys
listening to music, have /some/ kind of moral obligation to compensate an
artist who's work I enjoy (regardless of what the law requires). However, I
am also struck by the absurdity that someone could possess a natural right
to control /copies/ of a work of art that they willingly released to the
public in an easily reproducable format.

- Scott

------------------------------