False, I'm not taking money out of disneyland's pockets if I eat before I get there or bring my own water
Completely irrelevant, since food and water are not part of Disneyland's IP.
she's not entertaining for free because there is no expense incurred by the artist when someone copies a CD.
She is entertaining your ungrateful ass for free because there was an expense incurred
to write and record the songs on that CD, and you feel entitled to get that work she did for free. Again, can you explain WHY you feel so entitled?
So artists can only make money recording by depending on an ultra-complex legislative construct fueled by lobbyists and politicians that only exists in certain countries while simultaneously giving the same product away through radio and TV channels, hmm no wonder people question IP.
This is a pet peeve of mine, so I apologize in advance, but I find it both stupid and annoying when people form strong opinions about things they don't understand. It looks like you don't actually know much about how IP law works, because artists are not giving their music away for free through radio and TV channels. Radio and TV pay royalties. How does that affect your analysis?
Also, speaking as a lawyer, copyright law is not even close to "ultra-complex." It's quite simple and with a few specific exceptions not relevant here, it's also very consistent from one country to the next thanks to the Berne Convention, which has been adopted by
167, yes one hundred and sixty-seven, countries around the world. Those countries include Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Kyrgyzstan and other leading lights of the western nations (haha). Here is a list of the members:
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15I didn't say they shouldn't get paid, Radiohead gave away an album. There is touring and all sorts of other live performances.
I responded to that point in my last post prior to this one.
(me): And in any case, it's been over a century since music has been well protected by copyright in western nations, which is actually longer than there's been the technology to widely distribute music, so there isn't really a valid comparison to be made between how much music is produced now vs. how much music was produced at some point in time when copyright protection was stricter or laxer.
(you): Since it's ineffective you're going to support abolishing it, right?
That's a total non-sequitur. What did you actually mean? And BTW no, it's not ineffective.
and also IP basically doesn't exist outside of western nations and that doesn't prevent the creation of music or books.
(me:) So tell me, when was the last time you heard a great song by a Chinese or Indian band? And when was the last time you read a great book in the original third-world language it was written in?
Well I only speak english so how could I read a book in a different language?
(me:) And the only way you're likely to read a great Chinese, Indian, etc. book is if some western publishing house pays a translator to translate it into English and then publishes it--which it would make no economic sense to do if you couldn't protect translations with copyright.
Like the Bible?
I think you are missing my point. The reason it is remotely economically viable to translate books written in other languages into English so you can read them is because of copyright law. As for your remark about the Bible, do you sincerely, in your heart of hearts, think that there is a valid economic comparison to be made one of the if not THE best-selling books of all time, whose audience is constantly renewing itself thanks to Christian people having kids and/or preaching to others in search of converts, and a new novel written by some guy in Albania?
As for IP barely existing outside western nations, see the link I posted to the 167 countries that are members of the Berne Convention.
FYI try playing a Beatles song for profit without permission, pretty sure those are older than 20 years.
You were talking about patents, so that's what I responded to. Copyright lasts much longer than patents.
And no one is required to work for free. Music is created without copyright and will continue to be made as long as humans are alive I believe.
No doubt it will. But there's also no doubt that people won't be able to be professional musicians--and thus won't be able to write anywhere close to as many songs, or explore as many musical avenues, or evolve artistically in interesting ways (e.g. compare the Beatles circa 1964 to the Beatles circa 1969), unless we continue making it possible for them to earn money from the songs they've written. Not just from the touring they've done, but from the songs they've written.
My sense is that you simply don't think writing and recording music deserves to be considered work or a job or a profession. Why not?