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

[Peter Jenner]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
I hope you are right, but I just thought it deserved a mention as free acce=
ss has often been a euphemism for free content. I would like the principle =
to mentioned even if what that means is left for later discussion. I certai=
nly agree that it is not  an easy subject.
Cheers,
Peter


On 18/02/2010 22:45, "Sherwin Siy" <ssiy@publicknowledge.org> wrote:

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 legisl=
ation (not haveing read the legislation myself) is in itself cause for alar=
m. 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 c=
ontent of a network. Laws and policies ensuring freedom of expression on th=
e Internet will cover an extraordinarily broad ground--including defamation=
 law, whistleblower protections, and any other offenses that can be committ=
ed through speech (false advertising, etc). Because of that, I'd assume (pe=
rhaps just in a fit of sunny optimism) that there's no reason to worry if r=
emuneration for copyrighted works isn't mentioned in this particular propos=
al.

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 th=
at
musicians are entitled to get paid for all kinds of use of the recordings t=
hey
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 reaso=
n
> 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 p=
aid
(a debatable proposition: plenty of high-quality musicians out there who do=
n't
get paid well enough to stop flipping burgers, and too large a proportion o=
f
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 enou=
gh
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 reall=
y
does rub a lot of us the wrong way is the notion that authors should someho=
w
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 fin=
d a
way to make people pay for using it", and I have empirical evidence to supp=
ort
my skepticism. The evidence is the Internet, a place where paid access is t=
he
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 (o=
ften
financial motivation) to actually produce quality works without charging fo=
r
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