Couldn't have said it better!

The center of this controversy is the word 'free', not 'freedom.' To some, the word 'freedom' distills down to mean that they don't have to pay to acquire someone else's work product. They like it that way. Try to acquire a container of milk by walking out of the store without paying for it. I don't know that there would be any disagreement that a charge of shoplifting and an appropriate penalty would be in order. Why not so 'on line'? Why would you want to pay good money to attend a concert, video record it and then post segments of it on YouTube for someone else to see at your cost? It's done all the time!! The mindset for that sort of thing boggles mine!!

Are you as well planning to stand outside the grocery store, having purchased a tank truck full of milk, to distribute it at no cost to potential milk buyers. How generous of you! You might incur the wrath of the shop keeper you are now in competition with.

Royalties are paid for the use of performances of recorded music played in public places.The public has free access to that music. The same has been true for years on radio. Sponsors paid for broadcast time to market their products. The broadcast medium paid for the use of the music with those revenues. You got the music for free, but you couldn't give it away, or sell it to anyone else without violating copyright law. Those who created, produced and distributed the work got to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Why should this not be true for internet distribution? Why not so for YouTube or any other internet outlet which makes such material available?

Think of the internet in the same fashion as you did about commercial broadcast radio and TV and you can't help but see the parallels in this particular issue. The free flow and access to information is not the case here. You could go to a library and enjoy the same at no appreciable cost. Your tax dollars paid for that. The internet is big business and internet entrepreneurs are reaping big profits from it. You pay for the use of the internet even though much of the material you access is free. The unauthorized access and use of someone's work product is what's is at issue here, and that should not be permitted.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

"The unauthorized access and use of someone's work product is what's is at issue here, and that should not be permitted."
Can that be retroactive? I guess EC and every other blues player on the circuit owes Robert Johnson and all of the other blues men and women in heaven their entire career earnings as well as the shares that the record companies have claimed from the use of those tunes, riffs, lyrics, feelings and what have you.
Only the tip of the iceberg, splitting hairs over intellectual property and now, for real, every body owes some thing to some one that has gone on before. Trouble is when bands start out playing covers to learn the trade they don't want to pay but show them a bit of success and suddenly their music is untouchable without a price.
Talk about hypocrisy, pulleease, movie makers television production radio every media is beholding to some one who did just what they're doing before they are, try to get them to pay or their sponsors, not gonna happen, the originals aren't getting a red cent usually because their statute of limitations ran out spelled f u n e r a l.
The big boys always got the angle and the government has the regulations to prove it. Please leave youtube out of it after all most of the media of every type is using it to their advantage and you can bank on that.
I said it before, these bills are government money plays only, they don't care about you or your intellectual property unless they can turn it into tax revenue and hire more drones. I know this sounds like a gov rant but it's not. When you see the pickpocket working and you tell your friends and cross the street to get away from the perp that doesn't mean you don't like them it means you don't like people putting their hands on your wallet.

was that clear or is further explanation needed?

_________________
you can save the world with your guitar one love song at a time it's just better, more fun, easier with a fender solid body electric guitar or electric bass guitar.

I know that you are aware that music eventually goes public domain unless copyrights are renewed, and patents expire as well. Metallica { very heavy metal, but very corporate and business minded] handled the issue of protecting their work product in their fashion. It didn't costs them their fan base. Nirvana choked down the price of tickets to their performances. I suppose, in the purist sense, cover bands should be paying royalties for playing those songs, but that sort of thing has been going on for decades upon decades even w/ASCAP and BMI monitoring the industry. It helps create a market for the work. And let's not forget about 'jukeboxes' and all the nickels, dimes and quarters they swallowed. This internet is different, It creates a 'free' zone, where the work product can be had for nothing,and that's not right.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

Most of the time the bands are covered by the house paying the ASCAP BMI fees they should be paying for the DJ, Karaoke, Juke Box. As far as public domain? Thanks to Disney nothing in this country since the 1920's has gone public domain. Disney keeps getting the copy right laws changes to protect "Steamboat Willie." Disney claims if it goes public domain then they lose Mickey Mouse and that cartoon. The real reason is Disney makes a ton of money off of "Steamboat Willie."

"Current US law extends copyright protection for 70 years after the date of the author’s death. (Corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years after publication.) But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years (an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years). Under those laws, works published in 1955 would be passing into the public domain on January 1, 2012."
If you wanted to find guitar tabs or sheet music or record your own version of some of the great music of the early 1950s, January 1, 2010, would have been a happy day for you under the old copyright laws. Bell Bottom Blues (Teresa Brewer), Angel Eyes (from the movie, Jennifer), Young at Heart (Frank Sinatra), Santa Baby (Eartha Kitt) and C’est Magnifique (Cole Porter) — they would all become available.
What other works would be entering the public domain if we had the pre-1978 copyright laws? You might recognize some of the titles below.

Rudolf Flesch’s Why Johnny Can't Read: And What You Can Do About It
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Return of the King, the final installment in his Lord of Rings trilogy
The Family of Man, Edward Steichen’s book of photographs showing the diversity and universality of human experience
Michihiko Hachiya’s Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician, August 8–September 30, 1945, translated by Warner Wells, md
Evelyn Waugh’s Officers and Gentlemen, the second book in his Sword of Honour trilogy
The first English translation of Thomas Mann’s last novel, Confessions of Felix Krull, Confidence Man: The Early Years (1954), by Denver Lindley
C.S. Lewis’ The Magician’s Nephew, the sixth volume his The Chronicles of Narnia
Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita
Jerome Lawrence & Robert E. Lee’s play about the Scopes “Monkey Trial,” Inherit the Wind
’Til the End of Eternity?

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/pre-1976

_________________
Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore, trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility.-Khalil Gibran

And yet pretty much every artist of this generation supports it.

_________________
Favorite bands:

Melvins
The Jesus Lizard
Cows
Big Business
R***man
Minutemen
Flight
Minor Threat
Big Black
Shellac
Karp
Scratch Acid
Wipers
Pixies

I don't think there's one artist out there ( Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Pink Floyd etc) who when starting out wouldn't have jumped on YT like sh$t off a shovel, just another form of advertising until some corporate entity gets there claws on it, one of the main values held aloft by the Punk movement " we can do it ourselves" Rock n Roll n Sausage.

Many artists have taken to becoming their own 'corporate entities', and owning the 'mechanicals' right from the get-go. [Joe Bonamassa is a current example of such with his J-R organization]. Requiring YT to have an exclusion clause restricting the use of an artist's work without agreement would protect the former yet provide the 'up and comers' with the opportunity to showcase themselves ad libitum until they deemed the need to eliminate the 'free lunch' if ever. Punk movement philosophies not withstanding, at the end of the day it's still the music business. I don't see bands like The Ramones, and Blondie and their ilk having given away the farm.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

What other works would be entering the public domain if we had the pre-1978 copyright laws?
Quote from Krab...

Am I to understand that an artist's creation..Be it in whichever form it appears music, art, literature or a composition of all.....Should be available to all for Free...
I fail to see where an artist would be able to earn a living or for that matter his/her estate would be able to survive once the artist was deceased and the material is available for all at no charge.

That is not why many strive to become painters, musicians, authors...etc...etc....
Reality is that it is next to impossible to be an artist without a source of revenue to fund that pursuit......The Punk movement and the Romantics can voice the beauty and nobility of a free for all market but a starving artist on the street does not benefit anyone, least of all the artist.....
Romantic notions seem to have taken a front seat on this debate...

I am myself finally in the last stages of completing a Design Build ( renovation of an 1840 Cape ) the owner wished for a similar style to the Craftsman / Cottage period in the Greene & Greene and Purcell & Elmslie style.
My point here is that it is very much more in the artistic realm than in the traditional cookie cutter/generic box type of home that is littering the country....
So does that mean that I should not be compensated for the work...? That eventually once the owner passes on, the property should revert to any-one who wants it...? for free...? The surviving family members be damned...?
This does not apply with estates so why would it be so within this context of media...?

I have no problem with having to purchase for a fee either music or films from a copyright source or from the artists themselves, but that still does not allow me to dissect that product and make it available to others in various forms....
It's quite simple really......

I also don't buy the big government big Corporations are out to eventually corrall us into a Matrix scenario.....
We all Collectively have and each of us Personally has a role to play in our future and it's development.
Spouting off On how it's Big Brother squashing us is infantile, since our world is quite complex and it takes a lot of personal effort to succeed......
Let's face it....If big Gov's and Corp's are the Evil Empire...Then I suggest that the critics give up their Mac's or PC's, I-Phone's, Blacberry's, Kindels and everything else which is part of the Matrix......

Let's keep it real and on point and leave the Sci-Fi scenario's to the Entertainment field.
Fear mongering and inaccurate information is exactly where and when it becomes a gathering of Lemmings..
When instead it should be an intelligent debate with problems and solutions discussed.....

_________________
"C'est parti mon Kiki "

Well said, as only you can.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

So are you saying that every high school band, orchestra, drama class, little kid ballet class, should have to pay royalties to the estate of Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven, and Euripides? Should public schools have to pay copyright fees to the estates of pre 1900 works studied in school? Should art classes have to pay for thr right to use pre-1900 art in art class?

After a certain amount of time yes the work should go into public domain. It use to be the copyright lasted 50 years after the death of the last creator listed on the work. Now it is the life plus another 70 to 95 years, and Disney keeps getting that pushed to a longer amount of time. There are artist out there who thinks yes they should be paid for their work if you are making money from it, but if you want to use it for study or to create something new that will be free for anyone to see, then by all means use it. That is why you see more and more stuff coming out under the Creative Commons license.

Remember under SOPA, use a Michael Jackson song in your slide show, go to jail for five years. Kill Michael Jackson, go to jail for four years.

In attempting to map the public domain Pamela Samuelson (intellectual property law) has identified eight "values" that can arise from information and works in the public domain, though not every idea or work that is in the public domain necessarily has a value.
Possible values include:
Building blocks for the creation of new knowledge, examples include data, facts, ideas, theories, and scientific principle.
Access to cultural heritage through information resources such as ancient Greek texts and Mozart’s symphonies.
Promoting education, through the spread of information, ideas, and scientific principles.
Enabling follow-on innovation, through for example expired patents and copyright.
Enabling low cost access to information without the need to locate the owner or negotiate rights clearance and pay royalties, through for example expired copyrighted works or patents, and non-original data compilation.
Promoting public health and safety, through information and scientific principles.
Promoting the democratic process and values, through news, laws, regulation, and judicial opinion.
Enabling competitive imitation, through for example expired patents and copyright, or publicly disclosed technologies that do not qualify for patent protection

_________________
Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore, trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility.-Khalil Gibran

It's an interesting argument you make, but I fear that it's high mindedness is not the persuasion of those who are simply seeking to continue to enjoy a 'free lunch'. It's a sociological phenomenon which has evolved, and extended itself, parallel to that of the technology which allows the unencumbered free exchange of information. There are people in this who grow into adulthood feeling that entitlement is theirs to enjoy and that the greater society is responsible for maintaing their good and welfare in a style to which they feel they should become accustomed. In your own thinking, you as well must 'break the shell' as you suggest of others, to appreciate both sides of the issue. Somewhere in the center, is the resolution of it.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

I should point out while i support public domain for older works i think people should pay for copyrighted work. I have over 5000 songs i have collected over the last 20 years. All have been paid for. In some cases i have picked up the same cd three or four times due to theft or damage. But there comes a time when it should slip into public domain.

_________________
Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore, trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility.-Khalil Gibran

I will share with you one interesting anecdote regarding Disney, whom you apparently regard as an anathema. Some years back they mass mailed every pediatric medical and dental practice they could muster an address for informing them that the use of Disney video material as an adjunct to the management of young patients was unauthorized and a violation of copyright law. Now just imagine. You go out and purchase this product and, by virtue of such have paid for all rights and priviledges for your personal use, but they inform you that it is unlawful to employ it in your business pursuits. I'm ever mindful that cute and cuddly Disney has sharp teeth and will bite you.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

The reason I bring up Disney is they are the ones who keep getting the law changed because of Steamboat Willie.

_________________
Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore, trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility.-Khalil Gibran