From: spike66 (spike66@ATTBI.com)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 22:14:34 MST
>
>
>>(spike66 <spike66@ATTBI.com>):
>>
>>We have a clear precedent in the world of published sheet music. When
>>photocopiers became widely available in the 70s, it became so easy to copy...
>>Consequently fewer artists bothered to publish in that format... spike
>>
>Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>...and you're sure the sheet-music publishing business didn't die
>because (1) technology made producing and selling recordings of
>actual performances cheap and easy, and (2) copyright law was changed
>to cover recordings of performances, so musicians could use the same
>business model with a different product which had more demand?
>
I recognize the sheet music industry was in decline before photocopiers.
Fewer high school students are choosing to take up music. There are
ever more good alternatives. Copiers merely contributed to a trend.
Copyright law as it applied to recording has been universally ignored
as long as I have been around. As a teenager I was in a band and even
made some money, but I never took it seriously as a means of making
a living. People recorded us in every gig, we didnt care. I did get
some great funny stories out of the deal.
>The Xerox machine didn't destroy the book-publishing industry.
>
Books are difficult to copy in quantity. The bindings make them
difficult to press flat.
But this does bring up an interesting side thread. More and more,
the attempt to protect media from copy is making the information
less accessible. As Eliezer pointed out, text on dead trees is not
so much information as a picture of information.
Soft copy text can have hyperlinks. It is getting difficult to
write without those, isnt it? {8-] Within 10 years, I predict
that the lack of hyperlinking capability on paper text will
cause that medium to become practically obsolete. Watch
the book industry implode by 2012. I dont know how
professional authors will copy protect their work. Lee
Daniel, would you go into that as a means of making a
living? Now?
Today, when I invest the ever more valuable resource of time into
the written word, I want a soft copy of that material so I can
search it later. Books do not lend themselves to this very
easily. I still consider it stealing to reproduce copyrighted
material for others, but I deal with this by choosing carefully
what I read and listen to.
For instance, I rip my own CDs onto my MP3 player but do
not email the files. Since I became aware of the issues of artists and
writers work being copied, I have become very reluctant to
spend much time reading copyrighted material. I respect the
author's copyright, but now I purchase less than 10% the number
of books I once did. The web is filled with non-copyrighted
material of which I can get a soft copy, which is far more
valuable to me anyway. I foresee the day, soon, when we
will carry our libraries around with us, on a palm-pilot like
device.
I have purchased exactly two hardbound books in the last
12 months (both of them written by Damien Broderick).
I used to buy average 30 to 50 books a year.
I see no moral dilemma in any of this. If one believes copyright
is a good thing, then either buy the books or dont read them.
There are plenty of alternatives. Music is easy for me: I dont
particularly care for the latest stuff. There are *some* advantages
to being old. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:11 MST