http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:55:09 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/105316.php#comment-52901 Because it's mine, Mine, MINE! Ahahahahahahahahahaha! 52901@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:55:09 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/105316.php#comment-52853 I don't think it IS only the creator's business what happens to a work of culture once it has been released into the world. We are talking about materials that were once available but now aren't, yet th ecopyright keeps them tied up so that no one else can do anyting with them either. Why should a creator or copyright holder have the ability to prohibit someone else from doing something creative with a work that they have not kept available to the public? 52853@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:47:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/105316.php#comment-52766 surely what they do with their material is their own business. in the example above, i thought it was pretty short-sighted (and what else is new for a record label). nobody was making any money off of these mp3s...and just think, i might have heard something interesting...which might have lead me to purchase some other music. nah, it'd never happen. 52766@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:21:40 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/105316.php#comment-52765 I think that if you actually register the copyright to something, what you do with it [or not] is your business. I don't think we have a constitutional right to see/hear/etc. someone else's expression of ideas. But I do sort of agree that the passive nature of copyright is kind of silly. You don't have to do ANYthing to claim your rights. It seems that you should have to protect your work actively. 52765@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:17:00 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/105316.php#comment-52748 Very good analogy: should copyright owners have the right to prohibit access to unavailable works? If so, why? No one is gaining anything if the public has no access to works. 52748@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:38:20 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/105316.php#comment-52740 yep, i've seen weird cases of this in the digital (sort of) music world. there was a website devoted to unearthing old exotica records. ones that had gone out of print years ago. the site took old LP's and posted mp3's of the songs along with lovingly scanned cover art. the copyright holders found out about it and had them shut down. the holders had no interest in reissues of the material (they were asked!). kinda sad. 52740@blogcritics.org Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:08:26 EST