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

[Sherwin Siy]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Dear Peter,

While I see your point that musicians should definitely be remunerated, I'm
not sure that the absence of their mention in the press around this
legislation (not haveing read the legislation myself) is in itself cause for
alarm. A valuable and functional network is good in and of itself, though it
is admittedly but one piece of a larger picture in ensuring remuneration for
artists. I expect that other pieces of that puzzle will have to be included
in other legislative proposals or large-scale contractual agreements.

Though it's also worth pointing out that just as a free and open network is
but one part of a digital future for music, music is but one part of the
content of a network. Laws and policies ensuring freedom of expression on
the Internet will cover an extraordinarily broad ground--including
defamation law, whistleblower protections, and any other offenses that can
be committed through speech (false advertising, etc). Because of that, I'd
assume (perhaps just in a fit of sunny optimism) that there's no reason to
worry if remuneration for copyrighted works isn't mentioned in this
particular proposal.

Best,
Sherwin

2010/2/18 Federico Heinz <fheinz@vialibre.org.ar>

> On 18/02/2010, Peter Jenner wrote:
> > I am not talking about demanding, I am talking about agreeing. If we want
> > plumbers we have to pay them.
>
> If I want musicians, I pay for them, too! That doesn't mean that I think
> that
> musicians are entitled to get paid for all kinds of use of the recordings
> they
> made, or the music they composed.
>
> > If we want high quality professional recorded music we have to pay for
> it.
> > [...] if something 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.
>
> Even if we agreed that high-quality work won't exist unless musicians get
> paid
> (a debatable proposition: plenty of high-quality musicians out there who
> don't
> get paid well enough to stop flipping burgers, and too large a proportion
> of
> worthless but well-paid ones), you are making quite a leap here. I also
> don't
> see why the author of a popular song shouldn't get a lot of money, *if the
> public wants to give that money to her*. But if the public doesn't get
> enough
> pleasure from the music to compel them to support the author, I don't think
> the
> author has a right to coerce that money out of them.
>
> Again, I don't think anybody is against artists making a living. What
> really
> does rub a lot of us the wrong way is the notion that authors should
> somehow
> have the right to coerce the rest of society into making a living for them.
>
> Personally, I don't buy the "high quality work will not exist unless we
> find a
> way to make people pay for using it", and I have empirical evidence to
> support
> my skepticism. The evidence is the Internet, a place where paid access is
> the
> exception, not the rule. If your premise were true, the 'net should be a
> wasteland, with only very few starving authors who stubbornly press on for
> no
> good reason at all. Yet look around you, and you will find that authors are
> all
> over the place on the Internet, and plenty of people find the motivation
> (often
> financial motivation) to actually produce quality works without charging
> for
> access. A lot of it is crap? Agreed. But enough of it is not.
>
>        Fede
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>



--
Sherwin Siy
Deputy Legal Director
Kahle/Austin Promise Fellow
Public Knowledge
www.publicknowledge.org
202.861.0020

1818 N St. NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20036