Leaderboard

I find that this is the bases of ownership: To have the right to choose where you music work is used or not. The rest comes later. So in this ugly example, if you decide that you allow such a use, as shown in the poll, it appears that you really have no problem with ownership of music. If you do not allow such use, then you support, at least a tiny bit the idea of copyright (the right to copy and the right to use basically). The rest is history. For the record, I created this seperate thread, so as not to derail the other one futher... :)

Well, if you were trying to make something different sounding, I must say, mission accomplished! :lol: This reminds me of a mix between Courage the Cowardly Dog and The Legend of Zelda :blink: It sounds mystical and mysterious, and yet kind of tongue-in-cheek in a way, to me. Don't really know what else to say :dunno: It was a nice listen! Thanks for sharing :nod:

Just to complicate things, here is how Scriabin's name would have appeared on his mummy wrappings in ancient Egypt:

I've just finished auditioning for the royal academy of music, you will have to learn piano if you attend. They do ask undergraduates to prepare a short piece of piano music that shows their standard of playing, in the audition. Apart from that you're expected to be able to improvise freely on the piano around a set chord progression. Listen / recognise / analyse 12 pieces of of music Give an indepth analysis of a score Sit an exam which contains questions asking you to complete a composition exercise, analyse a short score, and write an essay. But apart from all of that, the interview itself was lovely, the teachers really wanted to engage with you as a person and a composer, and obviously are passionate about writing music and teaching music. And despite everything they make you do, I don't think that its the most important part of the audition, they are fundamentally going to judge you on your compositions, but by doing all the tests they're making sure you would be able to cope with the program of study. Sorry for the long post, hope its helped :S

A. The harshest group of Nazi using my work to inspire them to kill brings up a plethora of issues I could spend days discussing. Is my work responsible for their choice to kill? I mean, it's kind of laughable that you bring this up as a defense to copyright. B. An ad about condoms? I don't know... are they great condoms? More of the same... it's another laughable defense. I chuckled. C. Dance? What's wrong with dance, again? How about clarifying your defense for copyright first. I'm amused by the examples, some of them made me laugh out loud, but by and large, what is this supposed to convince me to believe? Do you really think "workaround" patents exist? Do you really think patent legislation would be an issue at all right now if anything you said was actually true? Here's a hint: Go do more research about the patent issue. The problem is that you have to make money to live, not that you have to own your music. It just so happens that you equate owning music to making money. Separate these two issues and you'll understand my point. We live in a world that's changing, thanks to technology, and holding steadfastly to obsolete social models doesn't really convince me to do the same. In my opinion, what I do now doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of economic sense. I should have developed an interest in something that was more financially rewarding than music. But flip this coin and it makes even better sense that I accept my interest for what it is and say to hell with the consequences. I'm over being driven to pursue money. I don't compose to make money or "earn a living," and I don't see that it really makes any sense to say, "I have to make money, so I'll let copyright do that for me," when composing music and earning money are so far removed at this point. Let's not forget the over-abundance of music in the world and how little of it is paid for. This is not merely a coincidence. It is the inevitable outcome of economics that anything "abundantly available" loses value, essentially lowering the COST. Cost, in economics, is determined by 1) supply and 2) demand, which presumably makes things which are in high demand in lower supply. Well, with advances in technology, things like music are abundantly available no matter what the demand is, so now what do we do, impose scarcity - do we artificially lower supply to raise the cost and "value" of music? Forget about it! Money is the problem, and with it, this desire to "own" scraggy rather than sustain abundance and "access" to those things. Copyright is a part of this paradigm, one that I simply don't believe to be relevant to the changes taking place in the world. I teach middle school children how to play music. They like popular tunes like Smoke on the Water and Ironman, but existing arrangements of these works are above their abilities. These arrangements are copyrighted and it is therefore illegal for me to arrange these tunes without permission from the publisher. Yet, my students want to learn how to play these tunes. I could actually use a simpler version to give them this experience and improve their skills. If the publisher doesn't agree to my arranging the tunes to the playing ability of my students, do I violate copyright anyway and give them the opportunity, or do I just tell them, "Sorry, it's a copyright issue...?" Seriously, this is a real world, legitimate example of how copyright is such an unnecessary obstacle. Even buying the arrangement and re-arranging the parts creates a new "arrangement" of the tune, a derivative work, and without permission to do this is infringement. So, yeah, screw copyright. Heh... if I'm "out of [your] loop," all the better for me. I'd prefer an open-source world to whatever you call this "loop" of yours. My point is, if the world is changing, I'm really not interested in holding onto outdated systems stagnating that change. I'm not saying this of Copyright but rather of "needing money" in general. Again, I'm against ownership in general and support changes which make ownership no longer necessary or relevant to society. Uhm... doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm (including inaction). This means a doctor is ethically bound to save a life if they possibly can. In the states, you're not obligated to be treated for a medical condition if your vital signs are stable. This sucks for people with cancer who remain stable until their cancer makes them unstable, at which point any treatment for cancer is too little too late. Refusing service is a fuzzy issue in the states for a plethora of reasons that would take days to discuss. How about we stick to the topic at hand for now, shall we? No. Again with the money... ugh. I don't know why I wasted time responding (mostly out of respect for a long inquiry), but I hope some of my reply gets through to you.