Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
As per normal you are reading too much into this. He simply said that he felt artists should not get paid for life for something they create once. Of course later on in the thread when I pointed out that if a band recorded an album and 20 years later people are still buying it they deserve to be paid for that and he agreed so maybe he means something different, maybe he changed his mind. I don't really know what you are talking about here. If a person puts their record up for sale and people buy it over and over again they ENTITLED to be paid for it so long as people are buying it. It doesn't matter if it is also available for free. If someone goes to itunes and buys their album they should be paid for it.
|
did you even read your own statement
he agreed with you when you put the condition of an actual sale happening
your interpretation of what he was saying contridicts your conversation with him
he is objecting to free alternatives being taken down, from having the choice to try before he buys taken away from him
btw his arguement is even more anti copyright than mine
i believe i should have a right to use the torrents as a radio station BECAUSE canada has a piracy tax which provides greater compensation then the liciencing fees paid for radio broadcast.(on a per person basis)
Quote:
|
If someone wants to use their song in a movie or TV show or commercial they should either be paid for it or at the very least have to give their approval and agree not to be paid if they don't care. That is it. That is all I am saying.
|
this is where you cross the line he is complaining about
your arguing that they have a right to sell it forever, fine you can do that cc-sa
but then you demand that they can only do it if they GET PERMISSION
like i said your arguement justifies selling your shit over and over again
your trying to use it to justify taking that right away from other people.
if i bought a car i could sell to someone else, i could rent it out, i could even provide a service for a fee (taxi cab/limo service) all without every getting PERMISSION from the car manufacturer.
Quote:
There is no flaw in my argument, yet there is in the argument posted by the person I mentioned. You see it is very simple. If a movie is available for free online and you watch it (never mind if you legally or illegally downloaded it) and then you choose to pay to go see it in the theater you have made the conscious effort to pay for something that you already have gotten for free. That is very different from going to the movie theater walking in and watching the movie then deciding you don't like it and not paying.
This, as per normal, has very little to do with my original point which is that if you make a record and people buy the record you should be paid for it no matter how long ago it was when you made it.
|
but as i pointed out your trying to make too points
1. that they should have a right to keep selling their stuff
2. the right to prevent people who don't have PERMISSION from doing what they want with it
I have no problem with the first
if every artist was forced to release their stuff under CC-SA you would still have that right.
however nothing you said justifies the second arguement.