[A2k] Iceland to become a model for freedom of communication

[Peter Jenner]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
I am not talking about demanding, I am talking about agreeing. If we want p=
lumbers we have to pay them. If we want high quality professional recorded =
music we have to pay for it. The price can be subject to regulation. But if=
 you think musicians can afford to make recorded music of the highest stand=
ards without getting some money to pay for it , then surely you are living =
in a different recording world than the one I have been working in for the =
last 44 years.
I am no copyright absolutist and have little time for the current self inte=
rested arguments put up by the record industry. But on the other hand if so=
mething gives a lot of people a lot of pleasure I see no reason why the the=
 creator of that 'thing' should not get a lot of money, and if no one likes=
 it none. If you want to develop a more egalitarian structure for creativit=
y then I am open to discussion.

Once we can agree on the principle then we can talk about how it should/cou=
ld work and what is a 'fair' solution, we can then talk about how it can be=
 made into a practical solution.

Cheers,
Peter



On 18/02/2010 17:30, "Frederico Heinz" <fheinz@vialibre.org.ar> wrote:

On 17/02/2010, Peter Jenner wrote:
> Much as I approve of the general drift I am alarmed to see no mention of =
the
> need for the creators (and their investors) to get some sort of of
> remuneration for the use of their material.

Peter,

while I agree that it may well be desirable to put some kinds of artists (a=
nd
their investors) in a situation where they can demand payment for certain
commercial uses of material they have authored, I think that talking about
their *need* to get money for unqualified use of "their" material is stretc=
hing
it a fair bit.

Of course many of them would like to, but saying that they *need* it demand=
s
stronger evidence than their desire.

        Fede