[pp.int.general] Protest certain musicians?

[Christian Hufgard]

Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet) wrote:
> 
>>> This is not necessarily a bad thing. With the advent of electric
>>> refrigerators, professionally made ice was no longer affordable, since
>>> amateurs could make ice in their refrigerators.
>>>     
>> It's just a bad thing for those who want to have professional music and cannot afford it any longer. Oh, and of course for those, who like to copy it withoud paying - since they have nothing more to copy.
>>   
> You're missing my point. You're assigning a quality marker to whether
> something was made in a professional or amateur environment, a quality
> correlation that isn't there anymore -- just as is the case with ice.

Well, I think there is definitivy a difference between a bunch of
amateurs playing music two hours a weekend and some professionals doing
so 8/5. Take sportsman. A professional soccer player can definitly play
better soccer than an amateur.


> Today, how a musician makes a living has little or no correlation to the
> perceived value of their music. There is no way when listening to music
> to tell what the composer's day job is.

Partially right. But there is a difference in the frequence of the
output. Only very few amateur bands manage to release a new album a
year. If you want bands to be able to do so, you have to get them the
money to be able so.


> Therefore, the separation into "professionally made" and "amateur made"
> is articifial and irrelevant at best, and deceiving at worst.
> Professionally made ice was no better than amateur made ice.
> 
> As for "nothing will get created if the writers/composers/performers
> can't maintain yesterday's business model", which you are also implying:

Is that really, what comes out from my mails? Then why do I propagate
the use of free arts? I think using them is a pretty easier way than
fighting against lobbies that want to keep an outdated business model -
and reduces the danger of beeing punished for breaking the law...


> that argument was debunked thorougly with the advent of public libraries
> in 1850 (when the publising industry cried out loud that nothing would
> be written ever again if people could read books without buying them first).
> 
> Again, the incentivizing part of copyright has been proven time and
> again to simply not exist.

I don't think so. Extending it to dozen of years has been a mistake, but
I would not totally abolish it. Granting creators a monopoly for a short
range of let's say ten years gives them enough time to get back most
investments. Some musicians argue with the long tail. But most are still
looking for the end of their personal tail. :)


Christian