Originally posted by TheCopyrightRevolution
of course you can say that artists need to make money but they can still make money out of live performances whoever they are. in fact the small time
artist would make more money in their trade if the mass media wasn't bewilidering everybody.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
I see that your example is based primarily on the music industry and that's OK, but copyrights laws extend across a much broader artscape.
Take, for instance, a successful painter who has spent months working on an image. The painting winds up professionally photographed for inclusion in
his/her website. Then, an international company lifts that picture from the website and makes prints from it, selling them in hundreds of shops across
the world.
The original artist is by-passed and gains not a penny for their work. Copyright protects artists from that.
In the same vein, a writer may spend 2 years writing a novel. A change in the title, a different name for the author and the book could be sold by an
unscrupulous publishing company.
Copyrights also protect writers.
As to the music industry, I think the copyright laws are also fair, if not for the lyrics alone, then for the symbiotic relationship between voice and
instruments which made the song popular.
As an artist myself, I would be very upset if someone 'took' my work and marketed it as their own.
Interesting thread, TheCopyrightRevolution. I look forward to comments from the membership on this issue.
BTW... are you aware that the very words you write on ATS are similarly protected?
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
bbcode edit
[edit on 19/9/08 by masqua]