Re: record shows

>At 12:32 PM 6/13/96 -0400, Fang wrote:
>
>>I'm picking this portion of your text only as I 
>>feel this summarizes your feelings best...

     I think it's a fair summary of some of the
conclusions; more importantly I see that we're
approaching the point of core personal opinion
- -- which is where civilized discussions are best
left at an end.

>>The artist/inventor/creator/etc. creates. What 
>>he/she does with it after that is his/her business.

     I agree completely -- the question is what he,
she or it may do to control what *others* do with
the published material.

>>I think your attitude about "public" good may be 
>>fine in a "perfect" world. Communism looks great 
>>on "paper", but it ignores the "people factor". 

     My position has *nothing* do do with either
communism or any other "perfect world." It has 
everything to do with the extent to which an 
artist may use government coercion to control
downstream distribution of a published work. If
anything, restricting that control honors individual
autonomy at the "expense" (whether real or imagined,
tangible or otherwise) of centralized authority. The
antithesis of "communism" or any other collective
society. And it leaves the "people factors" to the
people themselves.

>>People aren't robots, therefore there isn't a 
>>"perfect world".

     Agreed.

>>What you've suggested only stifles the artist.

     In terms of incentives to produce and distribute
the maximum amount of high-quality work for the 
lowest reasonable price? Not at all. By encouraging
non-commercial distribution of lower-quality works,
and commercial distribution of quality works for the
payment of license fees to the artists, my proposal
recognizes the artist's creation and rewards the 
most efficient distributors. In fact, it mirrors the
ASCAP/BMI licensing system for playing pre-recorded
music and acknowledges the fact that taping for time-
shifting and similar non-commercial purposes has been
"fair use" of copyrighted material for ... a long
time ... I don't see where the combination has "stifled"
anything of public interest. And in those circumstances,
there's no reason to spend time and money protecting
the downstream right of control. 

>>Unfortunately, some artists rather starve than have 
>>their art displayed differently than what THEY envision.
>>That's too bad.

     If an artist chooses not to publish rather than to
publish and see what others think and how they choose
to use the work, that's a matter of choice. I don't see
anything "good" or "bad" about that decision, because
it rests on speculative conclusions about the relative
merit of the work. And the artist has chosen not to
allow a meaningful comparison.

>>However, it still is THEIR right, not yours or mine. 

     I agree that an artist has a right to publish or
not publish a work. When published for commercial gain,
so far as I'm concerned the artist has transferred the
right of non-commercial control to me in exchange for
my money. Remember that I fully believe in compensation
for downstream *commercial* use of the work. 

>>When you keep saying that the "public interest" has 
>>the rights, than it's YOU who gets greedy.

     If re-listening to a concert I've already paid to
hear is "greedy," then I suppose I am. Whether that 
"greed" is better or worse than the desire to profit
perpetually from one performance with no additional
investment of time and effort, I am content to leave
to the individual reader, bootlegger or patron of the
arts.

>>When you say that YOU bought a ticket to the show,
>>does that give YOU the right to tape and distribute 
>>as well???

     In the abstract, it should -- free non-commercial
distribution, or commercial distribution for payment
of a royalty to the artist. I have an ASCAP/BMI fee
structure around somewhere ... 

>>Or does the artist reserve the right to earn a living?

     This is a nonexistent dilemma. Artists are paid
to make studio recordings and for live performances in
support of those recordings, neither of which is 
affected by my view of downstream distribution. If the
question is phrased as whether an artist has the right
to an unanticipated windfall because I invested in a 
recorder and tapes, I think not. 

     Even to that extent, however, the dilemma does not 
exist. As Fang pointed out previously, noncommercial 
bootlegging identifies and defines a market that the 
artist and publisher are ignoring. If significant 
enough, the traditional business may move in with a 
reasonably priced product of superior quality. In those 
circumstances, it seems a fair trade to allow -- even
encourage -- noncommercial bootlegging because it 
essentially functions as free market research. 

>>Or, are you going to come along and decide he's "made 
>>enough money"??? 

     I'm not interested in making any decisions for 
anyone except myself. To that extent, I do think
that I should pay only once for a performance and that 
the technology of reproduction should benefit consumers 
unless the artist and publisher add some extra value -- 
such as an extended and remastered LAL. It isn't a
question of who has or has not made "enough money" --
the questions concern how much distribution and how
many distributors of published works are in the public
interest. Lacking any specific objection, I'd rather
promote competition and individual freedom on choice. 

>>I'll maintain my original position on this matter....

     I certainly respect your right to do so, and have
appreciated this small venture into some of the details.
Now how much did you spend on boots this week???  ;-}

Best regards,

Bob
Bad defeats Good then self-destructs ...