David Pererio wrote:
> Absolutely. If I were to adhere to the fundamental 10% alterations as
> I must do for my graphics in Australia then the originality of my sound
> becomes as subjective as my photography;-) But seriously, the same
> laws should apply for both mediums, or not at all. I suppose we should
> try to separate our drive for income and our need to create, reproduce
> and enjoy the product of our work.
>
I make a distinction between those driven by profit and those that are
driven by other needs. Not that some don't have both going on.
> > Copyright seriously stifles creativity there.
> In a nutshell, Walt. On a slightly different note, the Australian
> government today decided to alter indemnity against insurance claims
> for accidents occuring whilst one participates in physically dangerous
> activities whilst in the care of the provider of the entertainment. In
> short, if I undertake to bungee jump and consequently hurt myself, then
> it will be at my own personal risk and expense. This little aside
> isn't as much of a "red herring" as you may think because we should
> take a similar stance and responsibility for the material we record or
> create. The analogy I draw reference to here is that some of us have
> forgotten why we choose to do what we do. We wouldn't be recording or
> being creative if we didn't enjoy it, so why should I stop recording
> for fear of loss of "ownership"?
Ownership is the last of my worries with recording. Though if I was
trying to make a living at it that might be different.
I take it as a good sign that the government of Australia is taking such
a stance. I wish it would happen here too. And on a lot more than just
bungee jumping. It should always be the case that you are responsible
for your actions, and knowing the risks you are taking.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|