"The butterfly is a flying flower, and the flower is a tethered butterfly."
(Ponce Denis Écouchard Le Brun - imprecisely quoted..)
I was thinking about a video a friend posted on FB of a street performer. There was no sound, because she didn't have permission to use the music that the street performer was dancing to, and the Music Police will have none of that!
I understand the need to protect "intellectual property", but like all "protections", it can and will get out of control.
I have no idea what music was being protected, but I can't help wondering if the "owner" of that music would be so heavy-handed. Would they enjoy the fact that the street performer was using their music and delighting those watching and listening? Or would they rush into the street, demanding their royalty for using his music, or refusing to let it be used in a performance he or she might not care for?
It seems that now, not only do some artists demand payment each and every time we listen. They also claim the right to decide who gets to play it, and where, and on what devices..
How exactly is that different from charging people a dime or a dollar every time they look at a painting that has been published. Or for that matter, every time we look at a model in a magazine.
The street performer was in violation of the owner's intellectual property rights, since he was using it without permission to make money. But he was also exposing untold numbers of people to the music who would otherwise not have heard it at all. And if no one but those who pay get to hear your music, or view your painting, dance, poetry, or photographs, who is going to pay?
(sigh..) It's a very sad state of affairs, if you ask me..
"The butterfly is a flying flower, and the flower is a tethered butterfly."
(Ponce Denis Écouchard Le Brun - imprecisely quoted..)
I was thinking about a video a friend posted on FB of a street performer. There was no sound, because she didn't have permission to use the music that the street performer was dancing to, and the Music Police will have none of that!
I understand the need to protect "intellectual property", but like all "protections", it can and will get out of control.
I have no idea what music was being protected, but I can't help wondering if the "owner" of that music would be so heavy-handed. Would they enjoy the fact that the street performer was using their music and delighting those watching and listening? Or would they rush into the street, demanding their royalty for using his music, or refusing to let it be used in a performance he or she might not care for?
It seems that now, not only do some artists demand payment each and every time we listen. They also claim the right to decide who gets to play it, and where, and on what devices..
How exactly is that different from charging people a dime or a dollar every time they look at a painting that has been published. Or for that matter, every time we look at a model in a magazine.
The street performer was in violation of the owner's intellectual property rights, since he was using it without permission to make money. But he was also exposing untold numbers of people to the music who would otherwise not have heard it at all. And if no one but those who pay get to hear your music, or view your painting, dance, poetry, or photographs, who is going to pay?
(sigh..) It's a very sad state of affairs, if you ask me..