[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such

On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:02:31 James Harkins wrote:
> Returning, for example, to the "repeating a joke" example: it's a straw
> man, because repeating a joke around the water cooler at work earns me no
> profit. I'm not cutting into the original comedian's compensation. If I get
> up on stage and charge admission, that's different. No one should give this
> kind of counterexample a second thought, but Kinsella does. Yawn.

You do know that copyright law disagrees with you though right?

Jokes, at least in the form of one liners and other short forms, cannot get
copyright protection.

Also, you might come up with a brand new "genre" which has never been heard
before. You get no protection for this creative work even if the genre goes
on to become the next big thing. Sorry, you song in that genre did not do too
well economically even though it had vast influence and the songs that
followed in the genre made millions for those artists. Copyright law says you
are owed squat.

I find it is copyright law that has no underlying unifying principles. It is
vague and arbitrary and what we have today is harmful to society and culture.

And I do not say this because I want to see creative folks go unrewarded.

all the best,

drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Wed Feb 13 20:15:07 2013