My commentary on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/12/blurred-lines-and-copyright-infringement/
I don't believe that copyrights, trademarks and patents should be transferable property. Nor should something called a Corporation be allowed to own them. They were created by the freedom of our Constitution and hence they belong to the people. Second generation wealth is miserable. Having said that I don't believe that the heir to a great person should ever have their house taken from them. In effect I believe in freedom and that spoiled wealth should be freed from it. I think some of these are English legacy laws that are inappropriate and contradictory to our Democracy. What happens is that you have people with no artistic talent owning rights to works as if it was there own. They do not have the will to make the determination as to what is or is not consistent with the original artists intent. What is creates is a perpetuity of dusty radio music that feeds the money slots of the hidden rich; that money should go into the general till instead of ending up lobbying against it.
It also discourages new American talent from attempting to self actualize.
*****'
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 03 17 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
Discouraging new talent is therefore in the interest of the person, not the original artist, with whom the rights were transferred too. The viscious circle it creates makes it unlikely that the original artist, if competing fairly, would ever have become successful in the first place; per application of the doctrine that benefits those who profit from the rights who do not have the talent. So in effect no fairly competing artist would ever opt for it. Unless of course in retirement they needed to sell a block of those rights so that they could afford pot until they died? The bottom line is that if you truly have the power to create then you always will have the power to create and can therefore recreate unless of course you ruin your mind and body with drugs? Then we get a little meta philosophical here; is the use of drugs naturally encoded into the music and propagandizing more? That too would benefit the heir to the rights because it prevents more natural talent from succeeding because their lives were ruined as they were hooked on drugs? Don't believe me listen to the music of an artist who killed themselves and see if you can't find a nuance of depression in their sound of their voice. And perhaps it doesn't occur until later in their career when they realize their is no good like themselves at the top to be friends with? Because those is all the equivalent of "Rights ownership" that is unoriginal to them.
I don't believe that copyrights, trademarks and patents should be transferable property. Nor should something called a Corporation be allowed to own them. They were created by the freedom of our Constitution and hence they belong to the people. Second generation wealth is miserable. Having said that I don't believe that the heir to a great person should ever have their house taken from them. In effect I believe in freedom and that spoiled wealth should be freed from it. I think some of these are English legacy laws that are inappropriate and contradictory to our Democracy. What happens is that you have people with no artistic talent owning rights to works as if it was there own. They do not have the will to make the determination as to what is or is not consistent with the original artists intent. What is creates is a perpetuity of dusty radio music that feeds the money slots of the hidden rich; that money should go into the general till instead of ending up lobbying against it.
It also discourages new American talent from attempting to self actualize.
*****'
It also discourages up and coming talent from trying. It is a matter of comparative choice? Did the radio host and listener want to hear the antique voice or the new one? No one two voices are alike. It is like saying you that initial artist, long dead and gone, has some form of ownership of your voice. Not true, so shouldn't be encoded into law.
*****'
I also do not believe that user of recreational drugs should be granted to title rights to any of their creations; drugs being illegal, hence that money amounts to proceeds from racketeering. That was not their Holy Spirit that created those works when they were indeed under the influence. You want the natural talent to rise to the top, you want a fair and just world this is the way to go. I loathe watching Lady Gagga saying that she can't write music without pot. Or hearing Paul McCartney being a proponent of narcotics. What negative role model does that create for American Families? How many started on gateway drugs because of these false idols and lost their lives do to overdose. The Eagle is crying.
*****'
I might have a completely different perspective if my mind wasn't actively denied from me for over 23 years do to voices. I contrast to Lady Gagga I would proclaim, "If only I wasn't distracted by odd voices I would be able to perfect many original works of art." I am not asking for too much am I? They don't always talk to me which means it is a matter of spoiled will whether and if they do.
If you got a problem with the Nation of Men and our Constitution perhaps it isn't the best place for you to live?
*****'
I also do not believe that user of recreational drugs should be granted to title rights to any of their creations; drugs being illegal, hence that money amounts to proceeds from racketeering. That was not their Holy Spirit that created those works when they were indeed under the influence. You want the natural talent to rise to the top, you want a fair and just world this is the way to go. I loathe watching Lady Gagga saying that she can't write music without pot. Or hearing Paul McCartney being a proponent of narcotics. What negative role model does that create for American Families? How many started on gateway drugs because of these false idols and lost their lives do to overdose. The Eagle is crying.
*****'
I might have a completely different perspective if my mind wasn't actively denied from me for over 23 years do to voices. I contrast to Lady Gagga I would proclaim, "If only I wasn't distracted by odd voices I would be able to perfect many original works of art." I am not asking for too much am I? They don't always talk to me which means it is a matter of spoiled will whether and if they do.
If you got a problem with the Nation of Men and our Constitution perhaps it isn't the best place for you to live?
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 03 17 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
Discouraging new talent is therefore in the interest of the person, not the original artist, with whom the rights were transferred too. The viscious circle it creates makes it unlikely that the original artist, if competing fairly, would ever have become successful in the first place; per application of the doctrine that benefits those who profit from the rights who do not have the talent. So in effect no fairly competing artist would ever opt for it. Unless of course in retirement they needed to sell a block of those rights so that they could afford pot until they died? The bottom line is that if you truly have the power to create then you always will have the power to create and can therefore recreate unless of course you ruin your mind and body with drugs? Then we get a little meta philosophical here; is the use of drugs naturally encoded into the music and propagandizing more? That too would benefit the heir to the rights because it prevents more natural talent from succeeding because their lives were ruined as they were hooked on drugs? Don't believe me listen to the music of an artist who killed themselves and see if you can't find a nuance of depression in their sound of their voice. And perhaps it doesn't occur until later in their career when they realize their is no good like themselves at the top to be friends with? Because those is all the equivalent of "Rights ownership" that is unoriginal to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment