Supreme court may re-copyright public domain works.

Bye bye to all your free literature from days long gone by artists long passed.

www.wired.com...

This means new licensing fees may be placed on works that we now take for granted. This is surely a backlash from U.S. lawmakers for the public's disapproval of SOPA and PIPA. have to imagine the H.G. Wells is literally turning over in his grave right now.

There has to be a middle . I agree we abuse copyright laws we all download music and movies . I will down load music to see if i want to buy the cd , with all the crap out there I don't care to waste my money on crap music. Artist are being ripped off and it is true , perhaps they should be looking at the companies who make these recording devices for the consumer.. If it is illegal to burn cd and movies then why is wal mart allowed to sell mp3 players why does microsoft allow people to burn cd's . It is illegal to be in possession of drug but I can't seem to find a wal mart to sell me some dope. So maybe the governments should be targeting the people who are supplying the public with recording devices. I can't read a book online with out paying for it , if it is free it is from the writers consent.

You did read the article you sourced, right?

The works in question are still under copyright, just not in the US.

Would you rather US ignore other countries laws?
We can we steal from them, openly and blatantly?

Bill Gates and Al Gore should pay for everyone's copyright infringement being they gave us the tools to ensure it happened

Originally posted by abecedarian
You did read the article you sourced, right?

The works in question are still under copyright, just not in the US.

Would you rather US ignore other countries laws?
We can we steal from them, openly and blatantly?

I'd rather have them ignore all copyright law that doesn't come from the artist themselves.

Copyright exist to support rich fat cat company executives with no talent.
Seriously when I buy Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep do you think any of that money actually goes to Phillip K Dick , a man whose been dead for nearly two decades? No. Despite the fact that it only exist because of him it goes to a bunch of people who have nothing to do with him or his work.

Exactly !
Ask any major label artist (that writes their own material , that is !) how much they made on album sales vs. the retailers and record label and you would be very, very surprised indeed

So I suppose, that should I write a work of art and bequeath upon my wife, or even better: my son and daughter, the right to represent me after my demise, they have no right to do so according to your beliefs?

Please.

reply to post by Reptius

Seriously when I buy Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep do you think any of that money actually goes to Phillip K Dick , a man whose been dead for nearly two decades?

Actually it goes to his estate and who ever he designated as his heir. That is unless he voluntarily signed away his rights to the copyright. Even though he is dead the money is going where he wanted it to go. It doesn't go to the CEO of any company.

Brush up on how the law actually works before bashing it.

Originally posted by skonaz

Exactly !
Ask any major label artist (that writes their own material , that is !) how much they made on album sales vs. the retailers and record label and you would be very, very surprised indeed

edit on 18/1/12 by skonaz because: (no reason given)

Well there is a statutory minimum that must be paid to the person that owns the publishing. Every song sold actually puts money in the writer's pocket. Technically every song on every cd manufactured pays back to the person that owns the publishing. Now if the writer doesn't get that money it is because they voluntarily sold or signed away their rights.

The writer/artist writes a song and performs it. The label and retailer take all of the risk of promoting the product, paying for studio time, and all other related costs. They take a far larger risk than the artists, most of the time. Why don't they deserve greater compensation?

So, if I loan somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars, then spend hundreds of thousands more on publicist, promoters, agents, secretaries, A&R, distribution, and other costs, I shouldn't expect a large return on my investment? The fact that I will probably have to wait two or three years for the first hint of repayment doesn't entitle me to a larger share of the pie until I'm paid back?

Nope, Artists and the people that take a risk funding them aren't entitled to make money. Art is for the people, those that can produce it should do so without the expectation of making a profit. No one else should profit off of it either.

Record labels, movie studios, and publishing houses took huge financial risks to promote art and enrich the culture of the world for years. You want to know why their is more Britney Spears and less Led Zeppelin? You want to know why you have Die Hard 30 instead of more risky fare at the theatre? It is because the companies have to stick to the formula of what will sell. They can't take the risks they use to. Financially it doesn't pay. There is a formula that works and they will use it because capital ventured on something new and adventurous could easily bankrupt a company these days.

So, what we get is a constant barrage of Selena Gomez because of her Disney channel tie in, We get craptastic electronic beats instead of real instruments to save money. We get more Michael Bay and much less of the Kubrick style You can't risk the big budget on such a long and demanding shoot.

The industries had their own faults. I have listed many of the music industry's problems else where on this site. None of them are free of blame. However, they are less likely to change for the better when the financial rewards are disappearing.