Col, I probably used the wrong terminology re profiteering, perhaps profiting, or simply "money making" was more apt. No need to get hung up on definitions.

In relation to copyright expiry, you have to ask why they do actually have such a thing if it's such a clear cut matter that a creative work belongs to it's creator or other copyright holder.

When does ownership of a private good expire? Never. Your personal property is yours until you die and will then be passed on as per your will. But with copyrighted works we have expiry. This isn't a trivial point, obviously the law does not classify ownership of a creative work in the same light as ownership of private goods. It is a far less absolute concept of ownership.

If you get back to my original point you see why this is - copyright was not enacted simply in lew of an obvious fundamental right of ownership of the content or "image" of your creation, it was more about rewarding creators for their efforts where they have produced works that society values and to allow such works to exist which would otherwise not have were the financial reward not available.

Now if a new technology model allows creation and reward to occur with a more liberal concept of ownership, or if that ingrained model makes the current concept an ass to police, then we should be looking at redefining the law with regard to copyright, rather than pursuing the current madness which sees otherwise law-abiding citizens incur ridiculous financial penalites for "crimes" that the majority of us think are frivolous.

Daggett “Col Rouge, any system which makes criminals of most people who have used the internet is clearly not working.”

That is a neat Abrogation of personal responsibility.

If you know something is “illegal” should you not avoid participating in it – especially when you know there is a readily available “legal” alternative to your criminal (your word) activity?

The costs of a “successful” recording, by definition need to cover the costs of the “unsuccessful”.

My personal knowledge of the music industry is 1 in 16 actual releases get into the top 40. Your suggestion regarding the proportion of total revenue attributable to non-royalty or copyright costs (88.25% to 72.75%) includes recovering the cost of the “failures” (15 out of 16). The alternative would be an “economically non-viable” and, thus, non-existent industry likewise illegal copying seriously threatens the same basis for commercial viability.

HarryC all “industry”, under the western democratic market model of economic activity, relies on “profitability” to exist.
Simply put (and equally applicable to daggetts claim of recording company cost) – “profit” is the reward for risk”. Zero return is the reward of zero risk. If you want to chase a better return, you will have to a accept higher commercial risk.

“In relation to copyright expiry, you have to ask why they do actually have such a thing if it's such a clear cut matter that a creative work belongs to it's creator or other copyright holder.”

That was what was, historically, decided, I know some are suggesting extending the life of copyright.

As for
“Now if a new technology model allows creation and reward to occur with a more liberal concept of ownership, ….. sees otherwise law-abiding citizens incur ridiculous financial penalites for "crimes" that the majority of us think are frivolous.”

I refer you to my previous post

“I would suggest you convene discussions with all stake holders and get some "consensus" or at least majority support for your change proposals, instead of simply expecting every one to fall into line with your demands.”

Col Rouge, if a law is clearly a bad law, we have a right (and some would say a duty) to change that law.

Whether or not I encourage people to break this law, a large number of otherwise well-meaning and law-abiding citizens are going to continue to do so, and open themselve to the risk of prosecution and harsh penalties. The efforts of a significant proportion of law enforcers will be devoted to combatting these "crimes", or whatever you choose to call them, whilst crimes which truly harm all of us, such as burglary and car theft will remain unsolved.

Just as past laws against prostitution and homosexuality were ultimately unsuccessful in eradicating those patterns of behaviour, the current laws against copying music or other forms of intellectual property will not succeed, that is, just possibly, unless we are prepared to tolerate an unimaginable degree of intrusion against our privacy and abrogation of our civil liberties.

So why should we be prepared to allow our laws, our police and our courts to be used in this way to suit the narrow interests of the recording industry, when other alternatives which could enable the creation and distribution of music far more cheaply have not been considered?

I appreciate that if the copyright laws were altered or abolished it may well threaten the livelihoods of many who are currently employed in the industry who don't perform any functions which are necessary to create and distribute the music, but this can't be a reason to perpetute an inefficient system which costs consumers far more than it should, and which also unnecessarily consumes finite non-renewable resources such as the petroleum necessary to create CD cases.

>>The system does work, it is just you disagree with the system.<<

Glib.

Let me try once more. Can you not see the difference between a clearly separate physical manifestation of a published work, and one that exists only in encoded form in a transient medium.

The former is an easily identifiable, distinctly tradable item. I can see it, look at the cover, buy it, sell it, lend it to a friend and so on. Whatever happens, the license and the medium are inseparable. This has been the foundation of the "Recorded Arts" since Edison's cylinders.

The simplicity with which a license can be separated from the medium changes that relationship. It is sheer head-in-the-sandedness to pretend otherwise, and assume that the same legal covenants can be maintained as before.

Once upon a time, cars were slow. They were however dangerous if one ran over you, so the law stated that any motorised vehicle should be preceded by a guy with a flag.

In your world, the fact that cars can now travel at higher speeds is no justification for changing the law pertaining to the guy with the flag. I can hear you complaining, all those years ago....

"The system does work, it is just you disagree with the system."

Pericles “Let me try once more. Can you not see the difference between a clearly separate physical manifestation of a published work, and one that exists only in encoded form in a transient medium.”

Oh I can see a difference in the “carrier” but there is absolutely no difference at all in the “content”.

Separation of “process” and “content” is fundamental. To understand any “product or service delivery system”, be it music, written word, a physical product or an invention (patent protection).

Your argument is fatally flawed because you presume that changing the “carrier” (the process) changes the nature and thus the "value" and duty to compensate the originator for the benefits you derive from their original work (the content).

That a copy of the original work exists either as a permanent article or as encoded form in a transient medium or as a momentary reproduction on the air waves (the performing rights society charge radio stations for broadcasting copyright protected material) is completely irrelevant.

I recall saying once before and obviously I need to repeat it again –

Royalties and Copyright compensate the originator or copyright holder with compensatory benefits for their creativity.
Where their creative work is used as the object of a commercial exchange and thus, is protected by copyright legislation – something which if you want to change, you can petition for change and negotiate with all the stake holders. Until you do you are simply a pirate or hijacker of other people originality and you are delibrately and illegally depriving them of their source of income.

Btw there is nothing “glib” in stating the obvious – regardless that the obtuse fail to find comfort in it.

And your analogy to cars and red flags is asinine and in no way justifies your desire to steal the product of other peoples originality.

Daggett “Col Rouge, if a law is clearly a bad law, we have a right (and some would say a duty) to change that law.”

Then get the law changed but, until you do, you are acting outside it and are thus a criminal.

Gee, it's tough trying to introduce you to the excitement and volatility that is real life, Col.

Times change. Laws that were entirely sensible when thay were first mooted become stale and unworkable over time. If you don't see the parallel with the man and his red flag, that is not because the analogy is asinine, but because you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

>>Your argument is fatally flawed because you presume that changing the “carrier” (the process) changes the nature and thus the "value" and duty to compensate the originator for the benefits you derive from their original work (the content).<<

I presume no such thing, and it is impertinent of you to suggest that I do. When I buy my CD, I have fulfilled all my financial obligations to all parties. The owner of the copyright has been compensated for the content. The organization that put that work onto the medium has been paid for their trouble. The retailer has been paid full price for making it available to me.

The fact that subsequently I take it upon myself to move a fully-paid-for song onto a different medium, at my own expense, cannot be described as theft. Every part of it has been acquired legally, and fully paid for.

It is not analogous to broadcasting. There, the broadcaster is making licensed material available to an audience, and must of course pay for that privilege. However, you will note that the charge levied bears no relationship to the size of that audience - which is what you would expect, using your logic. Some time ago, a compromise was reached whereby a standard fee was levied, once per play. A similar compromise is now required that takes into account the new relationships between medium and content.

I have absolutely no desire or ambition to "steal the product of other peoples originality", and it is insulting of you to pretend that I have. What I do believe is that the present system of rewards does not reflect the reality of today's market, and that it will change.