Absurd, ill-conceived copyright law is the ruination of liturgical music. (I know, the Disney Corporation was the intended recipient of the benefits, but its malevolent influence has had a disproportionate effect on liturgical music.)
It does not protect creators, it protects corporations.
It prevents organic growth and encourages the Cult of the Disposable. (So much for 1st amendment guarantees that there shall be no established religion; the Church of the Holy Consumer enjoys protections of the law other denominations can only DREAM of....)
Or so I thought!
But now I know that the laws I thought were so bad, were crafted to ensure that frocks and the intellectual property they represent and their creators receive the respect and remuneration they deserve.
Whew, thank oprah THAT'S settled! But not as settled as we'd like...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/fashion/13ROW.html?ref=fashion
The Council of Fashion Designers of America faced a roadblock this week in its campaign to extend copyright laws to apply to fashion after losing the support of an influential trade group.
The copyright proposal has raised complicated issues: Can a dress design ever really be original? When does inspiration become imitation? Would the trends that designers create be hampered by policing the companies that copy them? Over the last two years, the designers’ council has hammered out a proposal that its members believe would target only those cases where designs are intentionally pirated.
It's terrible the way those Family Dollar copies of A. E.'s work eats into Lanvin's profits, huh?
Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment