Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
</p>
if i make a song, invest in the equipment to record it and distribute it and then up front tell you that you can only buy it if you agree to not copy it to anything else and you still buy it, why should you have the right to copy it, even after agreeing to not copy it? my proposal is the license should be clear at time of purchase.
|
IANAL
The imposition of your limitation of license acts as a disincentive to purchase your (song)material. The purchase of the material implies the convenience of the reproduction of the performance at the buyer's will. Limitation of the right to reproduce the performance will act as a negative on the purchase of the material as the presentation of the sale of the material is disingenuous, as the seller is only offering the same material at pre-licensing levels, thusly mis-representing the value of the material, which under previous licenses, did not have the limitations of reproduction.
Now, in order to guarantee that material is not reproduced unless under the specified license granted by licensor, bills such as the one recently proposed by this, and the two previous, need to grant the licensor's pretty much totalitarian powers of censorship, privacy invasion, and monopolization. Which is great if you are the licensor, not so much if you are the licensee. Which is what this bill and the DMCA are.
So yeah, you could clearly state what conditions your song could be reproduced under, however, as the law could be extrapolated, make sure you aren't singing about anything. Period. Case in point, take a look at copy right law, that use to have a limitation, however, since some art is technically created by corporations who are considered living entities (yet not having a body, or can be considered people in the conventional sense, as the actual artist has signed over their work to the corporation) the limitation of copy right is effective until the death of that corporation...(ummm... search Disney and copy right)
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
(OT-Segueing into a rambling discourse about the general theory of corporations) So if a corporation is a living entity under some laws, then would it not be assumed that in a twisted way, a corporation is a god? They have their own worshippers, they have their own pastors(sales people/HR) who extoll the virtues of the corporation and encourage the trade, they make sacrifices of people by laying them off, and convert them by hiring people. The construction of large building with the names of the corporation on them with people working inside can be viewed the same as building churches. Afterall aren't the most successful companies essentially churches? They offer enlightenment for only pennies a day!
Anybody recommend a good place to grab some of Marshall McLuhan's writings?