[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

I have trouble understanding the Big Record Company Establishment vs. Artist argument. Do the artists not sign a contract transferring copyrights and distribution (read advertising) rights? Do they not wish to benefit from this? Become a big rock star?

Those with the money tend to write very lopsided contracts. In this case, the record companies tend to reap far greater rewards from the efforts of the artists they sign and these artists are not fairly compensated. Legal as the contact may be, they are seldom drawn up to the benefit of the artist. Look at any typical employment agreement penned by the employer. Where is your fair say in the deal?

Originally Posted by dinosaur

My only point is this: If I were to write a book, or obtain a patent on a novel device of some kind, I would expect the laws of society to protect my intellectual property and my right to market (read profit) by it as I choose.

First, there is a HUGE difference between copyright and patent! And there are substantive laws governing each. Copyright USC title 18; Patent: USC Title 35. However, you can sign your rights to either away even though you may have created the copyrighted work or patented the idea.

Originally Posted by dinosaur

If someone claims the right to copy my book and sell, or even give it away to a million people, it is infringing on my ability to make a living from my talents--whether I choose to get into bed with the RIAA or not.

You are absolutely correct; however, I doubt that you have your own remunerated 'goon squad' of enforcers to see to it that your rights and money are not unfettered by some infringer.

Originally Posted by dinosaur

From a simple logical standpoint, people don't have the right to choose to distribute my work and declare they're doing me a favor by giving me 'free advertising'. If I wished to advertise that way, I would make express statements to that effect.
In the case of books, people can purchase them, read them and pass them on to friends (or in my case to libraries). They don't have the right to make multiple copies and distribute them.

Not only logical; it's the law.

When you buy a book or a recording, you do not own the 'art' or the 'idea' in the work. You are purchasing a 'license' to use it. Fair use... I can go to the town library and check out a book. As a resident, I don't pay for a library card. I can take out a book free of charge for a period of time and read it. That is perfectly legal fair use. I cannot copy it (it would probably be cheaper to buy the book anyway) nor can I sell that copy. Doing so would deprive the copyright holder of money -- the money I gained by selling the copy. That money is rightfully a profit for the copyright holder.