The copyright debate is a frustrating one for me. For a number of reasons:
1 - I know for a fact that an artist's greatest source of income is in no way their CD sales. Most of my family are all professional jazz musicians and professors in New York. Artists that give a crap about their music know they aren't losing anything thanks to downloaded/gifted/traded music. Consider this: music sales have gone up since technology has allowed this kind of distribution. People are generally unwilling to purchase music they are unsure they will like. If someone gives them a CD, they will go out and buy more albums. This "manifesto" was all over the radio for weeks. Suddenly it ceased. No one spoke of it. The information has been pushed aside. Big Money can make us forget a lot.
2 - So long as someone is not profiting from the CDs they own, it is ridiculous for them not to be able to give away copies. It is then their copy, they can do whatever they want with it, so long as there is no financial gain. If I can sell everyone I own and did not make/copyright at a garage sale, I can give away copies of crap I own.
3 - It is only legal to own burned copies of CDs/music you have already legally purchased, so long as you still own the original? Are these people retarded? People rip and burn their CDs because the shelf-life a CD is rather short. I'm not going to keep a nonfunctioning CD just to prove I have the right to make copies for myself.
The way digital copyright laws are handled are so bass-ackwards to me; it's like they don't even have decent intetions anymore.
1 comment:
Interesting points. I agree with your sharing points and I always suspected that the income from cd sales was very small. I think I read somewhere an artist receives $1 from each cd sold but they are charged back for production costs of the CD etc.
Post a Comment