TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MMdeaton [mailto:mmdeaton -at- mmdeaton -dot- com]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:45 AM
> To: TECHWR-L
> Subject: RE: Supremes rule for freelancers
>
<snippage>
> Napster was shut down because it ignored artist's rights,
> copyright laws, and ethics. You do not have a right to what I create.
I am
> the only person who has a right to what I create. And I have the right
to
> determine how my creations are distributed. Just because the Web makes
it easy
> to violate intellectual property rights does not mean you ought to do
it.
>
> Mary Deaton
> Deaton Information Design
Just to add another view, your statement that "(I) do not have a right
to what (you) create" is misleading and potentially outright wrong
without further clarification.
I mean, you wouldn't have created it if you didn't want to give people
the right to access it. Hence, the additional clarification would be:
"You do not have a right to what I create... without adequate
compensation."
Napster wasn't shutdown because of the thin argument that it ignored an
artist's rights; it was shutdown because it left greedy copyright
holders -- not necessarily the artist -- out of the payment loop.
There were probably more artists IN FAVOR of Napster than against it.
Why? Not only were the artists taken advantage of in the contract
negotiations in an effort "for their (music) to be heard," but after
signing away the rights, many still weren't being heard.
Artists in the music profession make the bulk of their money from
performances, not from their copyrights. For the few who do make
significant figures off of their copyrights, it still pales in
comparision to what they earned touring and is directly related their
touring and other promotional activities.
Hence, artists -- particularly the ones who are lesser known or who are
no longer being promoted in the top-40 -- are happy for the additional
exposure that Napster provided. They are happy that the fanatics can
find them.
The Music Business is not jumping through hoops to re-release music that
had its prime in some past... unless the pay-off is big. They are a
"business" looking for very large ROI. It doesn't matter that every day
some teenager becomes "enlightened" to the brilliance of the performers
in their parent's, relative's, teacher's, or older person's archives. It
doesn't matter that they find this new "collectible" much more valuable
and satisfying than the next round of Taco Bell Star Wars Beenie Babies.
It doesn't matter that they would purchase it if they could find it.
What matters is the ROI to the copyright holder, who has run the numbers
and calculated that their profits are too low to re-press and re-release
niche music.
Hence, I don't see Napster going away. In its next incarnation, it'll
incorporate means of micro-payments so that the artists can be
compensated directly.
Also, for what it's worth, the big cards in the defense of Napster have
not yet been played in court yet. People have been able to record
off-of-the-airwaves for years, yet this hasn't deterred them from still
purchasing the official album -- which music sales over the last 30
years clearly indicates.
Part of the reason is that from a technology perspective, the AM or FM
broadcast of the song was inferior to the original record/CD. (I've
noticed a nasty tendancy of radio stations to make the song even more
inferior by talking through a song's introduction, blending two songs
together, cutting off songs, and other techniques to disrespect the
music and sell ad time.)
By this same argument, MP3 is inferior to the original and doesn't
lessen the desireability of the original, packaged version.
Don't let the arguments of the business blow smoke in your eyes.
As this relates to (technical) writing, the goal of most writers is to
be read. The goal is not to become rich off of the copyright, because
this is sure to lead to the work not getting read. Getting read by large
numbers of people has its own rewards, direct and indirect.
My two Schillings.
Glenn Conrad Maxey
maxey -at- privatei -dot- com
108 W. Byers Place #207
Denver, CO 80223 (USA)
(h) Tel. +1 303.282.4578
(w) Tel. +1 303.223.5164
*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com
Sponsored by Cub Lea, specialist in low-cost outsourced development
and documentation. Overload and time-sensitive jobs at exceptional
rates. Unique free gifts for all visitors to http://www.cublea.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
