There's no such thing as copyright but I still want you to pay for using my stuff

Posted by ReneeDaphne 8 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
54 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

When you utilize my CD ("A State of Grace: 2014 State of Jefferson Tour" available in the Agora here and yes, this is shameless self promotion of the highest order) by copying it and giving a copy to your friend, you have gained in some measure. Whether you got a smile or a sovereign, you benefited by utilizing something I (and the songwriters I perform) created so you could do that.

In addition, you're not really paying for the song or the visual or the CD or download. What you are paying for is the experience.

You don't come away with anything except the experience after a ride at Disneyland but you certainly pay for it. And it's something you cannot pass to another without utilizing my and other's time, labor and resources....our life.

So,. I'm not interested in the government getting involved but I would like to know how you intend on paying us creative producers for the experience we provided since you could not have had the experience without our efforts.

What about paying your "Access to Experience Fee"? Preferably directly to me and not through a "third party collector" like Harry Fox or the entertainment mafia (also known as) ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Think about what happens if you do not: you encourage the assassination of value creators so that such royalties are no longer paid. If I was not the one to originally create the tune or lyrics, I believe that proper attribution should be made to that owner - or his estate if I produce a variation on it.

    Do I object to Disney getting a special dispensation to protect Steamboat Willy? Yes. But then of course I have ethical standards where I wouldn't use that work for my own profit and gain either way. There are many who have no such moral quandary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago
    What do you think about having to pay royalty to the wastrel great grandchildren of composers when the composer has been dead for 50 years and you did all the work creating your recording?
    (Thanks to the Disney lawyers who wanted to maintain the gravy train from Mickey for another 50 years, and used their "influence" to have the laws changed a few years ago.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are absolutely correct. In addition, what do YOU mean by "owned". I use LeFevre's four principles 1-must be valued. 2-Has a boundary. 3-Can be defended. 4. YOU are able to change, sell or destroy the thing. All 4 must be fulfilled in order to claim "ownership" of something.

    Which means, right now, it doesn't look like we "own" much and until we have a principled populace, I can't see it changing much. Can you?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 10 months ago
    So much value in the world is appearing in creative content. Hardware is being commoditized. If there's no such thing as copyright, a lot of value people create is not owned.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo