----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Thats not what he's saying. The viewers pay nothing to receive the tv
> transmissions, and are also free to record any tv shows on their vcr,
> license. Its advertisers who pay the cost of production and transmission,
> as can be done on CDs, with ads between each song (as has already been
> before, see Seig Seig Sputnik, dating back to 1987).
Read again. He says:
a) "The naked, unsupported assertion that music sales will not support
artists absent copyright won't become true no matter how many times you
To summarize, he believes: The statement "music sales will not support
artists absent copyright" is false.
Mr. Crocker goes on to say:
b) "If this [the above statement] were *true* [emphasis mine] broadcast
television and radio would not exist at all, and yet they are billion dollar
To summarize, he believes: If the statement "music sales will not support
artists absent copyright" were true, then TV and radio would not exist
Thus, we are to gather that he believes that TV and radio are capable of
supporting their makers without the need for copyright.
Which is pure garbage-- it doesn't matter that they make their money from
advertisers-- advertisers only pay people with audiences. If you don't own
your content, then I can broadcast it too and I can get all the advertising
revenue. Again, there would be no good reason to spend money 'making'
content-- I should just concentrate on being the best broadcaster possible.
In addition, a viewer's 'right' to record the transmissions is a lot more limited and dicey than you might believe. Believe it or not, broadcasters do guard the right of recording and re-transmittal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:37 MDT