One year in prison and a hefty fine, this is the Swedish court ruling condemning 4 site owners. "The Pirate Bay" allowed through the pages of the exchange of materials protected by copyright of millions of users. After a first seizure with closure of an acquittal and that he had decreed the reopening of the courts overturned the ruling in the action of the major media companies.
As already happened for the closure of platforms or other file sharing sites, this should not affect the phenomenon of p2p, in constant growth. One wonders therefore if these demonstrations and intimidation as well, the entertainment industries do not have to revise their concept of protection of copyright.
It 'true that the artist must have its own source of income but it is also true that the Internet has made possible the movement, exchange and use of his works. The sharing of art can not and should not be limited.
New forms of revenue for the artists are possible. Just think of the Prince and his battles against his record company. After a long struggle succeeded in detaching themselves from producers and managers, accustomed to artists as lemons to squeeze, and that little has to do with art. Now the artist in Minneapolis is one of the singers who earns more in America. Without basing its revenue on cd, but simply have to allow downloading of his music and focusing on concerts and everything regarding audience that also increases due to the reputation that comes from the free movement of his music.
This practice was performed before the copyright was born. When the songs were broadcast by radio and live singers of fame that came which consequently increased the attendance at concerts.
The paradox is that in 80 years many have begun to reduce the number of concerts because they were considered too stressful, however, saw the highest gains from the sale of rights. Now the artist to afford even the life of luxury was "forced" to pull up their sleeves and get back to work by increasing the live performances. So it is that despite the majors complain about big losses by selling less and less of the disks, the various pop stars continue to see their earnings unchanged.
By then these simple considerations, it is easy to see how the record companies who are struggling against p2p do so only to defend their privileges and not the position of the artists.
It 'true that the artist must have its own source of income but it is also true that the Internet has made possible the movement, exchange and use of his works. The sharing of art can not and should not be limited.
New forms of revenue for the artists are possible. Just think of the Prince and his battles against his record company. After a long struggle succeeded in detaching themselves from producers and managers, accustomed to artists as lemons to squeeze, and that little has to do with art. Now the artist in Minneapolis is one of the singers who earns more in America. Without basing its revenue on cd, but simply have to allow downloading of his music and focusing on concerts and everything regarding audience that also increases due to the reputation that comes from the free movement of his music.
This practice was performed before the copyright was born. When the songs were broadcast by radio and live singers of fame that came which consequently increased the attendance at concerts.
The paradox is that in 80 years many have begun to reduce the number of concerts because they were considered too stressful, however, saw the highest gains from the sale of rights. Now the artist to afford even the life of luxury was "forced" to pull up their sleeves and get back to work by increasing the live performances. So it is that despite the majors complain about big losses by selling less and less of the disks, the various pop stars continue to see their earnings unchanged.
By then these simple considerations, it is easy to see how the record companies who are struggling against p2p do so only to defend their privileges and not the position of the artists.
0 comments:
Post a Comment