[OT] Internet Censorship
martyknapp at comcast.net
Thu Aug 11 13:37:28 EDT 2011
Cool! So now all I need to do is figure out who has god-given talent (as
opposed to atheistic talent or agnostic talent???) or who is "rich" and
I can take what I want!!! My brother is an airline pilot - makes way
more money than me. Has 5 cars, including a red '73 Chevy convertible.
Maybe I'll just "borrow" it for a while, when he's on a trip to Paris.
He doesn't need to know and he's rich, so it's my right! You can't drive
5 cars at the same time! Then there's my two multi-millionaire friends.
They're both self-made and very generous, but it never occurred to me
that because they're rich, I have a "right" to take some of their stuff
that I've determined they don't need. Awesome!
> Years ago the large Church I work for had a recording studio and a record label, so that we could produce "religious" music and not have to deal with the secular industry and the exorbitant prices they charged for use of their studios. Some artists because quite successful in their careers, as they were quite good.
> Later we bought a radio station and began playing the now wide selection of Christian music, but at one point one of the agencies that polices rights infringements approached our radio station and insisted we pay royalties to these artists (meaning the agency) for the right to use the music. Some of these artists got their start in our studios, and would never have gotten anywhere had they not started there.
> Our head Pastor was so disgusted, he banned any music from an artist who belonged to one of these agencies. Offerings on the radio were a bit slim for awhile. Now I can see someone being upset if another artist went around performing another artist's songs for money, because it was less money that the original artist charged. But the very thought of having people pay royalties on what we consider to be a "gift from God" namely the talent and the inspiration for the music seems to be... well "quenching". The moneychangers in the temple comes to mind.
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Roger Eller wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
>>> This whole thing seems laughable:
>>> When I was 13 my Mum and Dad bought me a radio-cassette recorder, and
>>> I merrily recorded all the songs on the radio that I liked, and recorded
>>> quite a few songs from gramophone records that belonged to friends of mine
>>> who could afford that sort of thing.
>>> At no time (1975-6-7-8) did ANYBODY tell that I was breaking the law, or,
>>> even, being "naughty".
>>> I, later, bought half a dozen of the records I had previously taped, so
>>> that I could pose to my "friends" with the record covers.
>>> Presumably, all across Britain (at least) teenagers were doing this all the
>>> time. How
>>> odd that it never seemed an issue.
>>> Rod Stewart still made millions, as did Kate Bush, Devo and Kraftwerk . . .
>>> I CAN understand that copying music and subsequently making money out of it
>>> is a bit infra dig.
>>> What a load of codswallop!
>> That is a similar story to mine, and many other kids of the 70's. If the
>> music was something I truly loved, then I would buy the record, tape, CD,
>> etc., but if it was just "OK", a recording made from the radio was just
>> fine. Nowadays, everybody's an "artist", whether they can sing or not. It
>> is assumed, and even expected that people pay for noise. The market should
>> be driven by the quality of the work. If it's good, DMCA or no DMCA, the
>> artist will STILL become rich and famous.
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode