[Gllug] Re: Anti-DRM event in Central London tomorrow!

[salsaman]

Leo Hickey wrote:

>> Did the original artist of the music make up every note, or was it 
>> "influenced" by other music ? 
>
>
> If the film maker had himself created music influenced by other music 
> he would not have been asked to pay the royalties.
>
>> Is $400,000 a reasonable amount to pay for using one piece of music ? 
>
>
> If the guy made $10m from his film, then yes. I don't know how much 
> the guy made, I'm just saying its relative.
>

Sure, I agree with you, *if* he made $10 million, then $400,000 would be 
a reasonable royalty. I somehow rather doubt that was the case.


>> Is there a better model...
>
>
> Quite possibly, but Lessig does not discuss any other models.
>
>> You seem to be tied into an either/or mindset, either somebody who 
>> wants to use a work pays up whatever extortion the rights-holders see 
>> fit to charge, or else it's theft.
>
>
> I am not of any mindset. I am open to persuasion, and my point was 
> that I was not particularly persuaded by Lessig's presentation. While 
> we are on the point, a lot of the discussion about DRM seems to be 
> either/or. Either we have draconian, evil DRM or nothing.
>
That's a different matter. There is no such thing as "mild DRM". No DRM 
can distinguish between fair use and other uses, because that requires 
knowledge of the users intent.


>>> Another example was someone who remixed Beatles tracks without 
>>> permission and was not allowed to sell the remixes. So what? why 
>>> shouldn't the Beatles be able to say they don't want these remixes 
>>> sold?
>>
>>
>> ... Because it's hardly likely to make even a tiny dent in the 
>> Beatle's income ? 
>
>
> So you would like to have the power decide that when an artist becomes 
> too rich then they are no longer entitled to any more royalties?
>

I should rephrase that, I think this guy releasing a remix would have 
absolutely *no* effect on the Beatles income.
Then again, if he does make a profit, I think the Beatles should be 
entitled to a fair royalty.



>> I believe the tune "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted by somebody. How 
>> would you feel if you had to pay a licence fee every time you sang it ?
>
>
> Rather annoyed. But I don't, and neither do I have to pay a licence 
> fee when I sing a Beatles song in the same context ie in my own house.


If the record companies had their way, I'm sure they'd love to charge 
you a licence fee every time you sang a song in your own home.

Let me give you another example. If I download a piece of music and 
listen to it, and I never intended ever to buy that music, who is harmed ?


Gabriel.
http://lives.sourceforge.net

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug