[OT] Internet Censorship

Marty Knapp martyknapp at comcast.net
Thu Aug 11 16:31:06 EDT 2011

I agree with you here Bob. Your previous post seemed to me to focus on 
the individual "talent" who shouldn't make money because it was a 
"god-given talent." But my post was also a response to those who excuse 
taking from someone because they think they are rich (which usually 
means someone who makes more then they do!) People do that to me - steal 
my software because they think I'm a big, rich corporation (and there I 
am sitting in my underwear in my home office working 3 jobs to pay my 
bills!). What really fries me is when they contact me for tech support!

Having a "you owe it to me for free" attitude can get you in deep sh*t. 
Another friend of mine is head of security at a hardware store. He told 
me that I'd be surprised at who shoplifts. He's busted retired cops, 
university professors and well-to-do business people, often stealing 
small, low-dollar items. In most of these cases, he said, the attitude 
was, "I buy a lot of things at this store and I deserved a freebie." Oops.

I like free stuff as much as the next guy. I like free software. I like 
free music. But nobody *owes* me free anything. And the irony is, the 
person who takes something for "free" because the copyright holder is a 
"greedy," "dishonest" corporation may be motivated in much the same way 
- greed "I want it, give it to me" and dishonesty.

This is not to say that I think that the misuse of copyright and 
trademark laws is OK. I've twice been threatened by lawyers for 
absolutely ridiculous "infringement." It was the only time it was nice 
to not have much money! I told them to go ahead, but they weren't going 
to get much out of me.

> <Sigh>. Once again I've started a controversy.
> My original point, which perhaps I did not make terribly clear is that there is a huge corporate machine that has grown up around copyright protection, that is the main entity actually making the money, and often is operating contrary to the original artists interests. A thing can (and often does) start out with good intentions but ends up being counterproductive to the original goal. I think in the Christian music industry, this has become a bad thing.
> Perhaps I should put it this way. It is my opinion that a Christian artist should decide whether he wants to devote himself to ministry, (which does not exclude making *some* money by the way to cover expenses and needs) or else make a living at what he does. BOTH CHOICES ARE EQUALLY VALID I must emphasize. But it is a bad idea and I stress IN MY OPINION to start out calling yourself a minister, and then end up trying to get rich at it. One seems to push out the other. "You cannot serve God and Mammon" I think was the phrase.
> Again, everything is about focus and balance.
> Bob
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Marty Knapp wrote:
>> 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!
>> Marty K
>>> 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.
>>> Bob

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list