The Further Argument for Sharing Music

John Snyder / NARAS provides some excellent ideas for updating intellectual property (IP) law to reflect our changing technologies and preferences. This is productive.

As technologies and preferences are not static, the law that facilitates these should be dynamic as well. Providing suggestions on how new IP law might look in the future is an important first step.

By not concluding that the situation is completely and utterly grim Mr. Snyder suggests that positive change may be effected through the existing system. And why not? If IP law has proven to be useful in the past, why cannot it do the same in the future?

Plenty of positive work is taking place in this vein. Consider some of the following at ‘http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/ulrp/msg00127.html’. And, of course, groups such as the Free Software Foundation (‘http://www.fsf.org/’) and others continue to provide pressure to counter the incumbent (and sometime overbearing) interests that exist in intellectual property.

IP law has worked in the past. Aquiescence is not, however, an appropriate response to present pressures attempting to make IP law into something that the vast majoirty of IP users do not prefer. Rather, positive and constructive changes to IP legislation will permit uses of IP that reflect the interests of all who use such property. Supporting the suggestions of the FSF and John Snyder / NARAS will allow IP law to remain effective in the future as well.

— Chris | Feb. 3, 2003 — 4 PM

I am a musician. I give my music away for free. I make albums, burn them and give them ALL away for free. FREE. Who cares about the money. I have a REAL job - I play music because I love it. The music “industry” is a pile of crap and is driven by money hungry jerks. Hey - you bastards. Stop thriving off of people who are making music. You whiney whiney jerks. thanks - James Can, the worshiper of music - not money. Jerks.

— KamakaZ | Jul. 23, 2003 — 10 AM

ROCK ON!!

— boobear | Sep. 22, 2003 — 12 PM