Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:16 am
by J.R.
Too much talk and not enough about sharing Fiona !
'Ave a word, Marty !!
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:56 pm
by matthew
jtaylor wrote:Morality/fair-play comes in here somewhere - if we want musicians/artists to continue to make a living from what they do (and hence continue doing it) then we have to accept that we as individuals must pay something to help support them.
Human creativity existed long before copyright. It's a myth that the creative arts would disappear without the laws we have today.
Strong copyright does strengthen the *professional* arts at the expense of amateurs, and makes culture more a spectator sport and less something we all participate in.
Whether that's a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion.
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:08 pm
by Mid A 15
The whole thing seems a "grey area" to me.
There was a thread a while back about Kwik fit being sued because their fitters' radios allegedly comprise a "performance" to customers or other visitors.
Musicians and other creative people are influenced by the work of others so where do you draw the line as to what is plagiarism, breach of copyright call it what you will?
I think the only clearcut things on this thread are that Fiona has a nice derriere and isn't owned by anybody!
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:05 am
by Hendrik
Looks like the Radiohead experiment worked. Conventionally they would have received aroun 20-50 cents per album, this way they averaged $2.28 per album. Quite a mark up...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_ ... load_study