tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3213986502266036431.post7814923225777036871..comments2022-11-10T01:24:29.873-08:00Comments on Pathetic Fallacy: Surrender to the voidUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3213986502266036431.post-74779286589083132162012-05-09T04:47:27.748-07:002012-05-09T04:47:27.748-07:00I would have to agree with dxpack. When Cadillac b...I would have to agree with dxpack. When Cadillac bought the rights to a Led Zepplin song, it certainly diminished it for me. In "This Note's For You", Neil Young wrote:<br /><br />Ain't singin' for Pepsi<br />Ain't singin' for Coke<br />I don't sing for nobody<br />Makes me look like a joke<br />This note's for you.<br /><br />But in the example John has provided with Mad Men, I see a difference. The song is being used to define the time period or give it a cultural reference point. And I'm sort of OK with that, as opposed to a blatant product hawk. In the end though, sometimes on any given weekend, I want to pull out the White Album on vinyl, and play it from beginning to end, because some artists do create a bigger picture with the tracks, not just a bunch of thrown-together songs. In other words, I want certain music like the Beatles to remain sacred (in some sense of that word). I don't want it used everywhere. It makes me nuts when I hear Beatles muzak in the elevator. Sorry for the rambling post here, but I guess the idea I'm trying to convey is that if music (or any other work that can be copyrighted) can stand the test of time, then I believe the author should be allowed to protect it as long as they want. It becomes a part of the fabric of our culture, and should be respected as such.KBActivehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826011653099206038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3213986502266036431.post-18304249763680440362012-05-08T16:43:05.054-07:002012-05-08T16:43:05.054-07:00Everything more than 30-40 years old should be in ...Everything more than 30-40 years old should be in the public domain. Period. Long copyright periods go against the whole point of copyright law and suppress the creation of new original work.<br /><br />dxpack may be concerned about "tarnishing" original works, but the copyright owners sure aren't. All they care about is extorting more money from the public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3213986502266036431.post-1264634197204641812012-05-08T15:53:51.659-07:002012-05-08T15:53:51.659-07:00Though I agree the copyright system is broken and ...Though I agree the copyright system is broken and iterative work, sampling, remixing, etc. suffer for it, I think you miss the mark on what is the fundamental concern.<br /><br />*how would that tarnish the original work*<br /><br />The original work is the sum of the experience of those who are presented with the original work. Blast "Tomorrow Never Knows" on every other Nike/Exxon/Ford/etc commercial and all future experiences of the original work are diminished. Once I've heard a track on a half dozen commercials or used in other situations where the accompanying content is effectively garbage, the track itself takes on an approximation of that garbage.<br /><br />*it's all the rest of us who are prohibited from using a work that was created in the first place from the culture at large*<br /><br />No one is prevented from using any such work. The limitation is on commercial use. You're free to remix "Tomorrow Never Knows" in any number of countless ways.dxpackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03385511132340611873noreply@blogger.com