Autorska prava

[MancMellow]

Kako to misliš "roba"?Ono "imaš robu, prodaš robu, i ostane ti roba"? Ima hazard pravo za ovo.

Pa doduše onome ko je napravio "robu" ni ne ostane... Nego ovome što je kupi prvi put i onda prodaje jedno isto 100 miliona puta. Jedinstvena delatnost

[Yoyogi]

Specificna delatnost. Tu robu bi svako preprodavao do mile volje i zaradjivao kao da je njegovog talenta delo da nema autorskih prava.Sta su bile "piratske" radio stanice 60-ih? Brod van teritorijalnih voda (ne podleze nijednom lokalnom pa ni zakonu o autorskim pravima) koji pusta muziku koju hoce, ne placa nikome nista a vlasnik naplacuje reklame i zaradjuje.

[MancMellow]

Taj brod autorskih prava je i danas bušan samo tako...

[Venom]

Kako to misliš "roba"?Ono "imaš robu, prodaš robu, i ostane ti roba"? Ima hazard pravo za ovo.

Da, a zamisli, jos je ludje sto za to sto prodaju dobijaju neke sarene papirice, koje beli covek zove "novac". Tako mi je bar deda pricao. A ovi danas su jos ludji, jer umesto papirica, samo im pise na ekranu da imaju toliko i toliko tih novaca. Malo tesko kapiram taj koncept placanja novcem, a ne trampom, pa cu jos teze ukapirati koncept da rad ne mora da bude fizicki. Edited September 12, 2011 by Venom

[hazard]

I nema nikakve veze sto im se roba i dalje prodaje?

Nema veze. Je li Mercedes uzme procenat svaki put kada se proda polovni automobil? Zamislimo tu situaciju. Svaki put kada bi se prodao polovni automobil, da bi po zakonu isao procenat proizvodjacu - besmisleno, zar ne?U apsolutnom idealnom slobodnom trzistu ne postoji kopirajt, ne postoje patenti. Svako bi mogao da bude placen da nesto otpeva, ali onaj koji to cuje bi mogao da se okrene i otpeva to isto i pokusa da zaradi. Svako bi bio slobodan da snimi nesto i prodaje taj snimak, ali bi bilo ko cuje taj snimak bio slobodan da pokusa da snimi nesto isto ili slicno, pa da sam pokusa da proda.Medjutim, to stvara jedan problem, a to je da bi ovi drugi uz minimalni napor ostvarili isti (ili mozda veci) prihod od ovih sto su ulozili svoje vreme i odradili tezi deo posla da komponuju i napisu neku pesmu.I onda je smisljen kopirajt - da bi dao stvaraocima kulturnih dobara podstrek da nastave da kreiraju nove sadrzaje, jer im drzava nudi zakonsku zastitu njihovog dela. ALI - i jedno veliko ALI - samo na odredjen period. I posle tog perioda to kulturno delo postaje javno dobro. Jer koliko je god dobro za polje kulturnog stvaralastva da stvaraoci na pocetku budu zasticeni od plagijatori, toliko je dobro da sva kulturna dela postanu javno dostupna dobra u nekom trenutku, da mogu da posluze kao inspiracija novim stvaraocima, da mogu slobodno ljudi da uzivaju u njima.Sa ovako dugackim kopirajtima potpuno se gubi smisao. Kakav je to podstrek kopirajt pevacima i kompozitorima da stvaraju, ako su vec odavno u penziji i nisu izbacili novu muziku vec godinama? Onda je to apsolutno obrnut efekat, napravis jedan hit album sa 20 godina i uzivas do svoje - sta, 90. godine?Drugo, ovakvi dugacki kopirajti guse novo stvaralastvo, jer ogranicava mogucnost koriscenja starog stvaralastva na nov nacin (nema obrada, remiksa itd. bez da platis, a i tad mogu jednostavno da ti zabrane), postoji opasnost da ce te neko tuziti za plagijat (u pop muzici i onako cesto melodije budu slicne slucajno), itd.Trece, ovo vazi i za "robu koja se prodaje" i "robu koja se ne prodaje", a 99% robe od pre 50 godina se zapravo ne prodaje, vec cami u nekim arhivima i podrumima, i ne sme niko da ga takne bez kopirajta, a ne postoji procena da vredi placati za to. Da nema kopirajta, mozda bi nesto od te robe videlo svetlo dana - tj., sigurno bi.Ono sto se od pre 50 godina jos uvek prodaje i vrti su hit pesme i albumi - a to su sve izvodjaci koji su u tih 50 godina itekako imali prilike da se nauzimaju para zarad svojih pesama. I sta, sad drzava treba da im garantuje prihod i preko tih 50 godina, jer su spiskali sve pare na zurke i drogu? Bitlsi i Roling stonsi imaju problem za kesom? E ako imaju, zabole me. Sto nisu stedeli?Muzikanti u modernom drustvu imaju zastitu kakvu nisu imali nikada u istoriji. Zasto im treba davati jos? Za cije babe zdravlje?

[MancMellow]

ma da je to zaštita muzičara to bi bilo super...

[Venom]

Zanimljiva ti je ta teorija podstreka, da se bude zdrav, prav i koristan clan drustva. Da li mora i slika Vodje da se drzi na zidu?Mercedes proizvodi automobile. Muzika, ili nesto sto se siroko moze opisati kao umetnost, se ne srafi na proizvodnoj traci, jedno za drugim, u beskonacnost. To je medjutim ne cini manje vrednom, samo drugacijom. Tvoja teorija u stvari govori da je kompakt disk na kojem se nalazi muzika vredniji od onog sto se na njemu nalazi. A to ne moze da bude tacno.Sto ne bi zabranili trgovanje akcijama npr.? Tj. da se izrazim tvojim recnikom, sto ne bi podstakli pucanstvo na posten rad, a ne da planiraju da sede do 90. na akcijama, odnosno uzimanju love od dividendi. Kakav podstrek takav pojedinac clan drustva ima, da bilo cim doprinese njegovom razvoju?

[hazard]

Nije to moja teorija podstreka, zbog toga je kopirajt izmisljen.Clan 1., Odeljak 8., Paragraf 8. ustava SAD kaze, kongres je autorizovan da "promovise napredak nauke i korisne umetnosti, tako sto ce osigurati na ograniceno vreme autorima i izumiteljima ekskluzivno pravo na njihove spise i otkrica."Dakle, to je zastita koju daje drzava. A kada drzava daje zastitu i monopol nekome (a to je ono sto kopirajt jeste) onda na prvom mestu mora biti razmatranja o tome kakva i kolika je korist za drustvo, a tek posle kakva je korist za pojedinca (autora).Slican rezon imas u britanskom zakonu koji je uveo kopirajt (Statute of Anne).A evo sta kaze Svetska organizacija za intelektualna prava, cemu sluzi kopirajt:

To encourage a dynamic culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public.

Sve dok tome kopirajt pomaze, OK je. Ali kopirajt koji traje basnoslovno dugo tome sigurno ne pomaze - sigurno ne ovom delu gde se spominje dinamicna kultura i pristupacan pristup za javnost.Dalje, procenat od ukupne muzike koja se proizvodi koji se moze nazvati umetnost je mizeran - mozda nekih 0,5%, ako i toliko (imaj u vidu da je ono sto ti cujes na radiju i TV zapravo tek mali deo onoga sto se zapravo proizvede i izda).I vecina te pop muzike se upravo srafi i stancuje kao na traci. Pa sva pop produkcija u jednom periodu cesto bude ista, ako ne i identicna, imas milion "estradnih umetnika" koji pevaju isto, na isti sablon, imaju imidz na isti sablon, imaju kompozicije na isti sablon i tekstove na isti sablon. To nije nikakva umetnost pobogu (cast izuzecima), to je industrija ista kao i automobilska. Srafljenje na traci, to je zapravo prava metafora. 99,9% muzicara nisu nikakvi umetnici, vec zanatlije. To sto se sve to nama potura kao "umetnost" je marketinski trik. Mnogo vise truda (fizickog i mentalnog) i mnogo vise intelekta i talenta je potrebno da bi se napravio taj jedan Mercedes, nego jedna trominutna pop kompozicija.Muzicki zanat je vec dovoljno zasticen od strane drzave, ne treba mu dodatna zastita.

[hazard]

E da, btw, ovo produzenje kopirajta se btw uopste ne odnosi na autore pesama (kompozitore i tekstopisce), ciji su radovi zasticeni za zivota + 50 godina. Ovde je rec o izvodjacima, dakle ljudi koji su pesmu otpevali ali je nisu "stvorili". Dakle, "ciste zanatlije" moglo bi se reci.I evo izvestaja koji je narucila engleska vlada od pre par godina, gde se jasno izlazu razlozi protiv produzenja ovakvog kopirajta:http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf

4.25 Performers argue that the incentives to perform are no less than those required towrite lyrics or compose a score, and that the performance itself is a work of art. The distinctivevoice and aesthetic of the performer adds value to the composition and is vital to making asong a commercial success.4.26 But the fairness argument applies to society as a whole. Copyright can be viewed as a‘contract’ between rights owners and society for the purpose of incentivising creativity. AsMacCauley argued in 1841, “it is good that authors should be remunerated; and the leastexceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For thesake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than isnecessary for the purpose of securing the good”.30 If the exclusive right granted by copyright(or indeed any other form of IP right) lasts longer than it needs to, unnecessary costs will beimposed on consumers.

Boldovano se opet odnosi na to zasto i kako je izmisljen kopirajt - celokupni interes drustva pre svega.I sad, da li kopirajt, kakav takav je danas, tj. kakav je bio pre ovog produzetka, radi ono sto treba da radi, tj. da daje podstrek za novo stvaralastvo?

4.27 Economic evidence indicates that the length of protection for copyright worksalready far exceeds the incentives required to invest in new works. Boldrin and Levine31estimate that the optimal length of copyright is at most seven years. Posner and Landes,eminent legal economists in the field, argue that the extra incentives to create as a result ofterm extension are likely to be very small beyond a term of 25 years.32

Kome idu pare, zapravo?

4.28 Furthermore, it is not clear that extending term from 50 years to 70 or 95 years wouldremedy the unequal treatment of performers and producers from composers, who benefitfrom life plus 70 years protection.4.29 This is because it is not clear that extension of term would benefit musicians andperformers very much in practice. The CIPIL report that the Review commissioned statesthat: “most people seem to assume that any extended term would go to record companiesrather than performers: either because the record company already owns the copyright or because the performer will, as a standard term of a recording agreement, have purported toassign any extended term that might be created to the copyright holder”.33 The BritishPhonographic Industry (BPI) submitted a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to theReview.34 Using the maximum revenues predicted in the PWC report, CIPIL estimated that thenet present value (NPV) of a prospective change in term would be 1 per cent or lower forperformers. The report noted that distribution of income would be highly skewed, with mostincome going to the relatively small number of highly successful artists whose work is stillcomercially available after 50 years.

i jos

Box 4.2: Artists would not necessarily benefit from extensionIn theory, artists would receive payment for an increased period of time. The PWC reportindicates that performers obtain 50 per cent of public performance income. However, theamount that performers receive from CD sales is set by a “greater variety of contractualarrangements between artists and record companies than ever before”.a But, the‘advance’ that creators receive is determined by contract and bands have to pay back therecord company for initial investment. Eighty per cent of albums never recoup costs andso no royalties are paid to the creator.b As shown in the charts below, on average creatorsreceive a very low percentage of royalties from recordings. If the purpose of extension isto increase revenue to artists, given the low number of recordings still making money 50years after release, it seems that a more sensible starting point would be to review thecontractual arrangements for the percentages artists receive.It is worth noting that length of term of protection on sound recordings and performancerights is not the only source of revenue. Performers receive pecuniary benefits beyond thereturn on the sale of their creations, by using celebrity status to make money. For example,performers may choose to appear in advertising campaigns or to sell brandedmerchandise, and the value that they bring to the advertising campaign is derived fromtheir creative works.

[Yoyogi]

Radi se o javnom izvodjenju.Slusanje muzike je, kada se jednom nabavi nosac zvuka, besplatno. Ko nam trazi da placamo opet i opet?Ono sto se stiti je otvaranje vrata da neko od te muzike zaradi pare: na primer, radio Sabac pusta samo muziku Bitlsa i posle svake pesnme 5 minuta reklama.Ili, da koristi muziku u reklamama za sta hoce i kako hoce.Ako se vec zaradjuju pare, sto ne bi i sam autor nesto dobio od toga? Niti su to znacajne sume, mozda 1 dinar po izvodjenju, ako i toliko. Radio stanica od 24 sata, ako pusti 10 pesama na sat, ostalo reklame i razgovor, za ceo dan programa plati 144 dinara autorskoj agenciji. S obzirom da zaradjuje pare od reklama, ne pusta ih za dzabe, zato i postoji kao stanica, sto bi ona dobijala muziku za dzabe? Ni taksisti ne dobijaju za dzabe benzin da bi zaradjivali vozeci putnike.Moze recimo radio stanica da ide i dalje: da proglasi turbo folk sranjem i nikakvom umetnoscu i da pusta samo to ne placajuci nikome. U neka vremena bi im Arkan poslao ekipu da promene misljenje o Cecinoj muzici. Sad mora zakon.

[Venom]

Secam se kad sam prvi put isao s caletom do video kluba, a ono potok prekopiranih kaseta, naslaganih na sve strane. To je bilo krajem osamdesetih. Trenutno smo blizu smaka sveta 2012, a ti recimo jos nisi shvatio da pare u tom svetu ne padaju s neba, niti bas tako slucajno. Neka bude kich i shund od 99,232%, da to jos preciznije i naucnije od tebe izracunam, ali mislim da ignorises da dolazak zarade od muzike nije nesto sto samo jednog dana padne s neba kao dobitak na lutriji. Odnosno uz puno truda i ulozenog vremena, a bez ikakve garancije. Onaj 1 uspesan od 100 propalih bi zaista trebalo da uziva u blagodetima svog truda, znanja, srece ili prodavanja krave u pravom trenutku. To za mene nije pitanje, isto kao sto nikom ne bi ogranicio pravo eksploatisanja akcija Applea, koje je kupio tamo negde 1998, na 50 godina. Isti je princip: ako imaju snage i volje da se u buducnosti time bave, samo napred, nek ulazu milione u novi materijal/poslovne poduhvate, sto se moze ispostaviti kao potpuna propast, a ako hoce neka, kao sto rekoh, uzivaju u blagodetima svog uspeha. Neograniceno - njihovo je.A ti jos imas izbor, a to je da ne ucestvujes u tome. Postoji besplatna muzika, besplatan software, besplatno sve od ljudi koji se sa sistemom ne slazu. Tu je u stvari jedini problem, koji imam sa sadasnjim sistemom. A to je da moras da budes u njemu hteo ne hteo. Ne mozes u mnogim zemljama - ne bih stavio ruku u vatru da je u vecini - ni da pustas muziku koja je potpuno dzabe, a da ti cike iz nekog SOKOJ-a ne zakucaju na vrata.

[hazard]

a ti recimo jos nisi shvatio da pare u tom svetu ne padaju s neba, niti bas tako slucajno.

A jesi ti shvatio (ili bar procitao) bilo sta od onoga sto sam napisao, ili od ovoga sto sam preneo iz ovog britanskog izvestaja? Mislim, seli ljudi, napravili studiju, istrazivali ohoho, bavili se par meseci (ili vise) ozbiljno tom materijom, sigurno su vise upuceni od mene i tebe, i doneli zakljucak da ovakav produzetak kopirajta nije dobar niti koristan, i to lepo argumentovali. Sta cemo s tim? Jer i na to odgovor roba se prodaje i pare u tom svetu ne padaju s neba?

Neka bude kich i shund od 99,232%, da to jos preciznije i naucnije od tebe izracunam, ali mislim da ignorises da dolazak zarade od muzike nije nesto sto samo jednog dana padne s neba kao dobitak na lutriji. Odnosno uz puno truda i ulozenog vremena, a bez ikakve garancije.

A izvini, gde to uopste ima garancije da ce ti si ulozeni trud isplatiti? Koliko je truda i vremena potrebno za tezak fakultet zavrsiti, pa jel postoje stopostotne garancije da ce se diplomac zaposliti u struci i imati platu kakvu ocekuje? Koliko truda i ulozenog vremena (i sopstvenih para) treba uloziti u zapocinjanje firme, sopstvenog biznisa, preduzeca? I da li postoje garancije da ce preduzece da uspe, da firma nece propasti? Naravno da ne postoje. Pa sta je onda tu tako posebno sa muzicarima?Al' ajde da napravimo jednu blizu paralelu, sa sportistima. Koliko je truda i ulozenog vremena potrebno da se postane profesionalni sportista? I kakve su garancije? Upravo nikakve. I sta se desi sa ljudima koji uloze svoje detinjstvo u cilj profesionalnog sportiste, zanemare skole itd., pa sa 20-22 godine ispuse, i ne uspeju? Ili sta se desi sa sportistima koji, u vecini slucajeva (dakle 90% prof. sportista na svetu, ne onih 10% megazvezda sto uzimaju milione) zaradjuju vrlo pristojno (ali ipak nista spektakularno) dok igraju pa im se onda zavrsi karijera u 35. godini? Sto za njih ne postoji neka zastita do kraja zivota? Mislim, bili su sportisti, eto, zabavljali narod (isto kao i muzikanti), sad jadni vise ne mogu time da se bave, treba im pomoci?Ja nemam sta muzicare da zalim, nemam sta da ih zalim ni 1% sto se tice njihovih sansi za uspeh. Zalim ih sto ih cesto zajebu producenti i izdavaci i izmuzu sve pare a njima ne ostane skoro nista, ili vrlo mali deo, ali to nema veze sa ovom pricom o kopirajtu. Oni - svi koji se bave muzikom - svesno preuzimaju taj rizik, znaju da je sansa da uspeju 1 od 100. Ali kada uspes, zaradjujes veeelike pare. Veliki je rizik ali je velika i nagrada ako se uspe. I ljudi to rade, bave se time jer su toga svesni, nadaju se uspehu. Ili, (ili uporedo s tim) jednostavno vole to sto rade (bavljenje muzikom) i znaju kakav ih zivot ceka uz to. Niko te ljude ne tera da budu muzicari, niti je vecina muzicara nesposobna da radi neki drugi posao osim bavljenja muzikom. Dakle, nema sta da ih zalim niti sta da ih zakon mazi i pazi do kraja zivota preko onoga sto je fer i sto je drustveno korisno.Tako da na argument "ali znas potrebno je mnogo truda i nema garancija" jedini pravi odgovor treba da bude - pa sta?

Onaj 1 uspesan od 100 propalih bi zaista trebalo da uziva u blagodetima svog truda, znanja, srece ili prodavanja krave u pravom trenutku.

Ono sto ti ocigledno ne shvatas je da to da li je neko uspesan cesto (ili zapravo u vecini slucajeva) nema nikakve veze sa tim koliko je talentovan, vredan, kvalitetan ili uporan u odnosu na druge koje nisu uspeli. Uspeo je taj jedan od 100, ali taj 1 zapravo nije nista drugaciji od 10, 20, 30, ili 50 drugih koji nisu uspeli. A zasto je uspeo bas taj? Pa zbog srece, ciste srece. Imao je srece. Pure randomness. Nista drugo. Mislim naravno u odnosu na ove sto nisu uspeli. Od njih X koji su jednako talentovani, jednako kvalitetni, i jednako vredni i uporni, jedan ce da uspe jer je imao srece, jer je bio na pravom mestu u pravom trenutku. Postoje ozbiljne studije koje pokazauju da u estradnom, filmskom, i literarnom biznisu cista sreca, slucajnost i splet okolnosti bira to koji ce album, film, ili knjiga biti uspesni. Vecina pop zvezdi nisu postale pop zvezde jer su na ovaj ili onaj nacin bolje od drugih koji su pokusali a nisu uspeli, vec jednostavno jer su imali vise srece. Tako da jednim velikim delom, to zapravo bas jeste lutrija. Dokaz su ti milion "alternativnih", "nezavisnih", ili "manje poznatih" bendova i izvodjaca, koji nisu nista gori od mejnstrima (mozda su bolji, mozda isti), ni po kvalitetu muzike (kompozicije, teksta) ni po kvalitetu produkcije, ili pevackom/svirackom umecu. Ali nisu milioneri jer nisu imali srece. A neko vrlo slican njima (i za to opet mozes da nadjes tonu primeru) jeste uspeo. Razlika je u - slucajnosti.Drugo - ti sto su uspeli, ti 1 od 100, su se vec nauzimali para ONOLIKO. Pride da podvucem jos jedanput da ovde nije rec o autorima, vec izvodjacima - autori su zasticeni za zivota + 50 (70) godina. U ovom slucaju govorimo iskljucivo o izvodjacima. Izvodjaci koji izvode pesme koji nisu ni napisali, ni komponovali su isti kao glumci u pozoristu. Da li glumci u pozoristu imaju zastitu da niko ne sme 50 godina da glumi neku ulogu koju su oni odglumeli jedanput?Evo jos isecaka iz onog izvestaja:

4.30 Investment decisions are typically based on the expectations of future returns.Therefore, in order for the incentive argument to hold, it must be shown that prospectiveextension of copyright term for sound recordings would increase the incentives for recordcompanies to invest in new acts.4.31 In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the challenge to the Copyright TermExtension Act,35 seventeen economists, including five Nobel Prize winners, estimate thatextension for new works creates at most 1 per cent value for a twenty year prospectiveextension (using NPV calculation) and they conclude therefore that extension of term hasnegligible effect on investment decisions.36 Furthermore, they noted that the then term ofprotection in the USA had nearly the same present value as perpetual copyright term. Assuch, many economists suggest that increasing copyright term beyond 50 years does notprovide additional incentives to invest, as monies earned so far in the future fail to impact oncurrent spending decisions.

Dakle - produzenje kopirajta za 20 godina (sa 50 na 70) donosi oko 1% ukupne vrednosti dela.Znaci 99% potencijalne vrednosti dela vec je unovceno u prvih 50 godina.Oni sto posle tih 99% kukaju da nemaju para i da im treba jos su1) ili oni koji nisu uspeli, te nisu zaradili puno para, te im tih 1% svejedno nece nista znaciti jer ce biti mizerna suma2) ili oni koji jesu uspeli, te zaradili mnogo para, a sve te svoje pare procerdali na gluposti (tipa, zene, drogu, zurke), te ne vidim zasto bi ih sazaljevali za to sto su pod mladje dane bili glupi.I sad - u kom periodu se zaradjuje od dela pod kopirajtom?

4.33 Evidence suggests that most sound recordings sell in the ten years after release, andonly a very small percentage continue to generate income, both from sales and royaltypayments, for the entire duration of copyright. Before becoming a signatory to the BerneConvention the USA operated a system where copyright had to be applied for and renewed.Between 1923 and 1942, there were approximately 3,350,000 copyright registrations.Approximately 13 per cent of these were renewed. If current law had applied between 1923and 1942, 3.35 million works would have been blocked to protect 77,000 commercially viableworks.38 In a system where all works receive protection for the maximum term, the vastmajority of works remain in copyright despite not being economically viable for the rightsholder. Without registration, it is difficult to get accurate estimates of the percentage of worksprotected in the UK by copyright that are commercially available. Box 4.3 below shows thatthe vast majority of income for sound recordings and books are generated within the first fewyears of issue. Therefore, extension would only raise revenue for a small minority of soundrecordings, keeping the vast majority locked up.

Dakle, produzenje kopirajta u ovom slucaju donosi sledece:1) dodatnih 1% prihoda onima sto i dalje mogu da prodaju svoja dela2) arhiv i katanac za ogromnu vecinu dela koja se ne prodaje nakon 10ak godina od izdavanja i za koju izdavaci ne vide interes da opet izdaju (i pri tom placaju izvodjacu za to).Posto je poznato da su ovi neuspesni u vecini slucajeva drugaciji od ovih uspesnih samo po sreci tj. slucajno, nema razlika da favorizujemo uspesne nad neuspesnim nakon 50 godina. Uostalom, ti uspesni su se u tih 50 godina vec para navatali onoliko. A mozda u arhivu nekom negde lezi neki biser, nesto sto, ako bi kopirajt bio istekao, moglo za neznante pare da se ponovo izda; mozda onda postao hit kakav nije pre X godina; mozda bi to donelo neku slavu izvodjacu pod stare dane, neki koncert, pojavljivanje na TVu, dil za knjigu o autobiografiji; da ne govorimo i prihodu za autora dela (koji se zasticen kopirajtom dok je ziv, dakle, njemu idu pare ako se uradi neka obrada, ili tako nesto). Sve su to mogucnosti koje su ogranicene jer neka dela stoje zakljucena negde zbog kopirajta, a niko ne vidi trenutno interes da plati da ih izvadi iz tog sefa.U vezi sa tim:

4.34 Extension would impact on all recordings. It would keep works in copyright evenwhen they are not generating any income for rights owners. One study found that partieswithout legal rights have made more historic US recordings available than have rightsholders. Furthermore, rights holders reissue recent works while largely ignoring earliermusic.39 Of the sound recordings published between 1890 and 1964, an average of 14 per centhad been reissued by the copyright owner, and 22 per cent by other parties.40 These statisticssuggest that the costs of renewing copyright41 or reissuing copyrighted material are greaterthan the potential private return, but that these works may have enduring social andcultural value.

I kako to utice na kulturu i muziku uopsteno:

4.35 The lack of commercial availability impacts upon consumers and users, but it is alsoworth noting the impact this has for all creators and musicians. Chapter 2 noted theincreasing prevalance of licensing and the complexity of rights clearance. If works areprotected for a longer period of time, follow-on creators in the future would have to negotiatelicences to use the work during that extended period. This has two potential implications:first, the estates and heirs of performers would potentially be able to block usage rights,which may affect future creativity and innovation; and second, this would make tracing rightsholders more difficult. Thus extending term may have negative implications for all creators.

Dakle predugacak kopirajt negativno utice na dostupnost kulturnih dobara i na buduce stvaralastvo. U tome je poenta. S druge strane, dobitak za nosioce kopirajta je minoran. I u tome je poenta. Dakle losi efekti za drustvo u celini su veci od dobrih efekata za pojedince nosioce kopirajta. Stvar je onda jasna - kopirajt u ovom slucaju ne treba produziti.

To za mene nije pitanje, isto kao sto nikom ne bi ogranicio pravo eksploatisanja akcija Applea, koje je kupio tamo negde 1998, na 50 godina. Isti je princip: ako imaju snage i volje da se u buducnosti time bave, samo napred, nek ulazu milione u novi materijal/poslovne poduhvate, sto se moze ispostaviti kao potpuna propast, a ako hoce neka, kao sto rekoh, uzivaju u blagodetima svog uspeha. Neograniceno - njihovo je.

Pa uopste nije pitanje da li muzicari koji stvaraju neka dela treba da bude zasticeni - pitanje je koliko i koliko dugo treba da budu zasticeni. Dakle nije pitanje o tome da li kopirajt treba da postoji (treba da postoji, to je jasno) vec koliko dugo treba da traje - 25, 50, 70, ili 100 godina.Tvoje poredjenje sa Apple deonicama je potpuno promaseno, jer koliko god deonice bile hartije od vrednosti i stoga apstrakcije, one su sustinski materijalna imovina. Kopirajt je intelektualna imovina.Postoji nesto sto je "stvarna svojina" nekoga, a to su materijalni objekti koje covek poseduje (od zemlje, nekretnina pa do ostalih stvari - ukljucujuci i novac i deonice). To je imovina nad kojom covek ima "licno" kontrolu. On te stvari poseduje i kontrolise.Ovde mozemo da dodamo i covekov rad. To je takodje njegova "stvarna svojina", on je kontrolise i moze pretvarati u vrednost.Intelektualna svojina je druga kategorija. U "cistom" slobodnom trzistu, ona ne postoji. Na "cistom" slobodnom trzistu, ideja se ne moze zastiti od plagijata i kopiranja. Intelektualna svojina "izmisljena" je izmedju 18. i 19. veka da bi se zaustavilo profitiranje na tudjim idejama. Tj., ljudi su shvatili da postoji veci podstrek za nekoga da smislja nove ideje ukoliko ima ekskluzivno pravo na njihovu eksploataciju. To je prepoznato kao korisno za drustvo, jer je drustvo doslo do stadijuma da ideje budu jednako vazne kao (ili vaznije nego) za napredak kao fizicki rad ili kapital. Medjutim, koliko je god korisno za drustvo da ljudi mogu da profitiraju od svojih ideja, toliko je korisno da te ideje cirkulisu, da budu slobodno dostupne, da drugi mogu da koriste te ideje za stvaranje novih, da ih nadgradjuju.I zato je napravljen kompromis - drzava ti garantuje da jedini mozes da eksploatises svoju ideju na odredjeno vreme, a ti zauzvrat pristajes na to da ideju javno objavis te ona posle tog vremena bude javno dobro, dostupno svima. Otuda patenti i kopirajt.Ti kazes "njihovo je". Pa, zapravo, i nije.Prvo pitanje je, koliko je "tvoje" nesto sto si samo izveo, otpevao a neko drugi napisao i komponovao. Jer, da podsetim opet, ova prica konkretno je o izvodjacima, ne o autorima.Drugo, ono sto je njihovo je njihov rad. Npr, njihovo pevanje i sviranje. Ali taj rad je vec kompenzovan, vec placen. Oni su svoj rad naplatili time sto su otpevali/odsvirali neki koncert i ljudi platiti da to slusaju; time sto su snimili CD za sta im je platila izdavacka kuca; time sto im izdavacka kuca da neki procenat od svakog prodatog CDa (ovo moze da se radi i bez kopirajta, tj. bez obzira na isti).Sam kopirajt nije nikakvo "prirodno" ljudsko pravo. Kopirajt je monopol koji daje drzava. A taj monopol je stvoren za opstu dobrobit i napredak drustva, a ne samo za dobrobit nekolicine pojedinaca koji se bave tim i tim.Trece, imajuci to u vidu, opet - nije njihovo, bar nije bilo pre ovoga. Njihovo je bilo, po zakonu, na 50 godina. Takav je bio zakon, i oni su to znali i mogli da saznaju. I ocigledno su znali da to prestaje da bude njihovo posle 50 godina. I zato su trazili da se promeni zakon tako da se proglasi da ce to ostati njihovo jos 20 godina.Teoretski gledano, cela stvar moze i bez kopirajta da se resi - nateras svakog ko kupi CD da potpise ugovor da ga nece reprodukovati; nateras svakog ko udje na koncert da potpise ugovor da nece reprodukovati to sto cuje; nateras svakog ko kupi radio/TV da potpise isti takav ugovor, itd. Pa ti onda preko suda goni one koji krse ugovor koji su potpisali. Samo sto to, jelte, tesko ide i nije vrlo prakticno.Sto nas dovodi do jos jedne dimenzije cele price. Oni koji drze kopirajt, imaju zastitu drzave - drzava garantuje njihovu intelektualnu svojinu. A ta drzava se finansira od poreza. A poreski obveznik sam recimo ja. Dakle ja svojim porezom omogucavam nekom muzicaru da koristi blagodeti kopirajta i tako zaradjuje. Zar nije logicno da, kao poreski obveznik (i svi ostali poreski obveznici) ocekujem nesto za uzvrat? Kao npr. da cu u nekom razumnom roku moci da uzivam u toj muzici kao javnom dobru? Zar to nije fer dil? Kazem, uvek moze da se izbaci drzava iz jednacine, pa nek se gospoda muzikanti snalaze kako znaju i umeju.

A ti jos imas izbor, a to je da ne ucestvujes u tome. Postoji besplatna muzika, besplatan software, besplatno sve od ljudi koji se sa sistemom ne slazu. Tu je u stvari jedini problem, koji imam sa sadasnjim sistemom. A to je da moras da budes u njemu hteo ne hteo. Ne mozes u mnogim zemljama - ne bih stavio ruku u vatru da je u vecini - ni da pustas muziku koja je potpuno dzabe, a da ti cike iz nekog SOKOJ-a ne zakucaju na vrata.

Problem je sto stvari izgledaju cesto kao da idu u tom pravcu da ja vise necu imati izbor. Da ce sve biti patentirano, kopirajtovano, i tako u nedogled, da ce doci vreme kada ce neka knjiga od pre 200 godina biti pod kopirajtom, da ce morati da se placa nadoknada za koriscenje najbanalnije stvari ili metoda ili softverske rutine. Potpuno se gubi iz vida koja je originalna svrha kopirajta i patenata, i prelazi se na apsolutnu, totalnu i stalnu monetizaciju svega. Kada nemamo novih ideja, aj da patentiramo one koje su ocigledne, ako nije vec niko to uradio; kada nemamo nove muzike koja se prodaje, daj da muzemo ovu od pre 40 godina do besvesti. I tako dalje. A to je sve vrlo, vrlo, vrlo lose. Edited September 13, 2011 by hazard

[hazard]

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/publicdomain/Loren2-7-00.html

The Purpose of Copyrightby Lydia Pallas LorenAssociate Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark CollegeFeb. 7, 2000The newspaper you read this morning, the television show you watched last night, the movie you are going to see this weekend, the computer software you use to prepare your letters or send your email, the music you listen to in the car on your way to work: they are all copyrighted. Copyright permeates our lives and yet, despite its impact on our lives, relatively few people, including lawyers, have sufficient knowledge or understanding of what copyright is. And far too many people, including lawyers, have major misconceptions concerning copyright. These misconceptions are causing a dangerous shift in copyright protection, a shift that threatens the advancement of knowledge and learning in this country. This shift that we are experiencing in copyright law reflects a move away from viewing copyright as a monopoly that the public is willing to tolerate in order to encourage innovation and creation of new works to viewing copyright as a significant asset to this country's economy. The most recent example of this shift is the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, sign by the President on October 28, 1998.Understanding the root cause and the dangers of this shift requires exposing the most fundamental and most common misconception concerning the underlying purpose of the monopoly granted by our copyright law. The primary purpose of copyright is not, as many people believe, to protect authors against those who would steal the fruits of their labor. However, this misconception, repeated so often that it has become accepted among the public as true, poses serious dangers to the core purpose that copyright law is designed to serve.The core purpose of copyright law is not difficult to find; it is stated expressly in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."This clause is the constitutional basis for the Copyright Act and also the Patent Act. It is the only clause in the grant of powers to Congress that has a stated purpose. Section 8 of Article I gives Congress the power to take such actions as declare war, coin money, raise and support Armies, and provide and maintain a navy. Yet none of these other grants say for what purpose the power is to be exercised. The copyright clause, in contrast, is very specific about its purpose. The exclusive rights that are granted to authors are "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To fully appreciate this clause, one must understand "science" in its eighteenth century meaning. At the time of the writing of the Constitution "science" denoted, broadly, knowledge and learning. So the core purpose of copyright law, as expressly stated in the Constitution is: to promote the progress of knowledge and learning.With the stated goal firmly fixed in the Constitution, the task of accomplishing that goal was given to Congress. The means for achieving that goal are also stated in the Constitution. The promotion of the progress of knowledge and learning was to be accomplished by "securing for limited times to Authors .... the exclusive Right to their ... Writings." The monopoly of the copyright would be tolerated, but only as a means to an end. The Constitution adopts a Field of Dreams approach to the creation of works of authorship - the idea that "if you protect it, they will come." By establishing this marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas. As the Supreme Court has recognized: "The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good."In fulfilling the constitutionally mandated goal of copyright law, Congress has had to ask, as one early legislative report did, two questions: "First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public?" As Judge Walker of the Second Circuit recently summarized: "The copyright law seeks to establish a delicate equilibrium. On the one hand, it affords protection to authors as an incentive to create, and, on the other, it must appropriately limit the extent of that protection so as to avoid the effects of monopolistic stagnation." The founding fathers wanted copyright to be a mechanism by which our democracy would grow and flourish - a way in which our storehouse of knowledge is stocked.The Dark Side of Copyright TodayModern-day copyright harbors a dark side. The misunderstanding held by many who believe that the primary purpose of copyright law is to protect authors against those who would pilfer the author's work threatens to upset the delicate equilibrium in copyright law. This misunderstanding obviously works to the benefit of the content owning industries, such as the publishing industry, the music and motion picture industries, and the computer software industry. This fundamental misunderstanding is perpetuated by the stern FBI warnings at the beginning of video tapes, by overly broad assertions of the rights in the copyright notices, and by the general lack of public discourse about the balance required in copyright law if copyright is to fulfill its constitutionally mandated goal of promoting knowledge and learning.This dark side, this pervasive misconception, is turning copyright into what our founding fathers tried to guard against - a tool for censorship and monopolistic oppression. This may sound extreme to some, but consider the beginnings of copyright in this country. The first Copyright Act in the United States granted only the exclusive right only to print, publish, and vend a copyrighted work, and it lasted for only fourteen years, with the possibility of a second fourteen-year term. No exclusive rights to perform the work or to create an adaptation of the work were granted, only the right to print, publish, and vend for, at most, twenty-eight years.Under current copyright law, not only do copyright owners have the right to publish and distribute the work, but copyright owners also have the right to control the public performance of a work, to control the making of adaptations of the work, and to control the reproduction of the work independent of what is done with that new copy. And, as a result of the Copyright Term Extension Act passed in October, 1998, now the basic term of copyright lasts for the life of the author plus seventy years. This new term is a far cry from the original maximum term of twenty-eight years, and results in a much larger monopoly and a much longer time that the public must wait for any given work to enter the public domain.Congress also has created additional criminal sanctions for copyright infringement with the passage in December 1997 of the No Electronic Theft or "NET" Act. Under this new legislation, an individual who is engaging in willful infringement can be held criminally liable even if that person is not engaging in the infringement for profit or commercial advantage. For the previous century a profit motive had always been the touchstone of criminal infringement. Now, if, over the course of any 180-day period, someone willfully infringes copyright by reproducing or distributing one or more copies of one or more works which have a retail value over $1000, they can be found criminally liable.The Importance of Balance in Copyright LawBut this focus on money, coupled with the general misconception that copyright's primary purpose is to protect authors against those who would pilfer their work, threatens further detriment to achieving the constitutionally mandated goal of copyright. If the use at issue is something for which the copyright owner desires to charge a fee and is able to show the court a simple and efficient means of paying the fee, the copyright owner can often defeat an assertion of fair use. This results in a situation that permits the copyright owner to narrow the rights of fair use by providing a licensing scheme for the types of uses that should not require permission from the copyright owner. If copyright is to continue to be the engine of the progress of knowledge and learning in this country, Congress and the courts should not permit the right of fair use to be limited in this manner.An argument in favor of more rights for users of copyrighted works and correspondingly fewer rights for copyright owners, often is countered by the copyright owning industries with an argument based on an economic analysis of copyright law. The argument goes like this: the greater the monopoly you permit, the greater are the financial rewards and therefore the greater the incentive to create. Thus, with broader monopoly rights, greater numbers of works are created and disseminated resulting in greater knowledge. To this there are, at least, three responses.First, the conclusion that a greater numbers of works will be created when there are greater monopolies fails to account for the negative implications of broad monopolies on creative expression. When the scope of the copyright monopoly becomes too great, the creation of new works is, itself, hampered. After all, each creator of a new work builds in some way on the works of the past. With overly broad monopolies, new works that build upon old are not created, creativity is stifled, and thus the net value to society is lessened. We have, what Judge Walker referred to a "monopolistic stagnation."Related to this first response is another concerning the conclusion that greater monopolies will result in greater levels of creativity. Creative individuals produce new works for a variety of reasons. The kinds of increases in monopoly rights of copyright owners empirically have not been shown to increase the production of new works. It seems unlikely that a creative individual, in determining how to spend her limited time and resources thinks, "ah, now that my copyright lasts for seventy years after my death I will invest more in creating more works." The greater scope of these monopolies instead benefits large corporate owners of significant numbers of copyrights. The majority of the copyrights are obtained by assignment from the original creators of the copyrighted works, after the works have been created. The amount paid for the assignment of the copyright depends, in part, on the projected profitability of the exploitation of the work, but it has not been shown that greater monopolies necessarily result in a net gain of new creative works.Finally, even if greater monopolies would result in greater numbers of new works being created, the conclusion that greater knowledge will result also is flawed. When the scope of the copyright monopoly becomes too great, there are uses which would result in a net gain to society, but the benefits of those uses are dispersed among all members of society. Because of this dispersion of benefit, it is extremely difficult for the full value of that particular use to be internalized in any bargained-for exchange between the copyright owner and the would be user of the copyrighted work. If the scope of the copyright owner's monopoly is too broad, then those beneficial uses will not occur. The kinds of uses which have those disperse external benefits are the uses that, if permitted, would in fact further the goal of copyright, to promote the progress of knowledge and learning.Copyright interpreted not with a focus on the ultimate aim of the progress of knowledge and learning, but instead with a focus on the monetary rights of copyright owners, results in uses that would be a net gain to society not taking place. The recent paradigm shift reflects a short term view of the copyright monopoly. If the monopolies granted to copyright owners are larger, then obviously the content owning industry can generate more revenue. This increase in revenue results in a larger gross national product, a smaller trade deficit, and greater employment. However, the threat of monopolistic stagnation looms very real and the ability of the content owning industry to charge monopolistic prices increases as competitive works are cabined in by broader monopolies granted to everything from literature and motion pictures to computer software.The Future of CopyrightI am not advocating an elimination of copyright protection. The protection granted to copyright owners is essential in providing the economic incentive for the creation of works. But in determining the scope of the monopoly rights granted to copyright owners, given the extreme length of the monopoly, we must not lose sight of the true purpose of copyright - to promote the progress of knowledge and learning - and we must all realize that too broad a monopoly will impede rather than promote that progress on which this country was founded.With each request for an expansion of the copyright monopoly, whether an expansion in scope or in length, the question must be asked: will the significant cost to the public of the increased monopoly be outweighed by the additional works that will be created and disseminated as a result of a greater incentive provided by that increase in the scope or duration of the copyright monopoly? In this equation the disperse benefits generally of a greater informed citizenry achieved through limits on the copyright monopoly must be factored in.

I tona drugih poucnih i dobrih tekstova na:http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/publicdomain.html

[badenac]

Posledni film Frica Langa koji je snimljen u predratnoj Nemackoj, M,sa Piterom Loreom jeste primer filma nad kojim niko nema vise autorska prava,te se moze slobodno gledati.No,mene interesuje jedna druga stvar u vezi ove tome.Da li ja mogu da svoje ime stavim na kraj odjavne spice a da sve to izgleda kao original,naravno i da film M Frica Langa postane film M Branislava Cirica?Da li je to krsenje autorskih prava?Slicna dilema vazi i za diplomske odnosno naucne radove .

Edited September 13, 2011 by badenac

[hazard]

O muzickoj industriji, od insajdera:http://300songs.com/2011/07/15/74-hits-are-black-swans-take-the-skinheads-bowling/

I’ve mentioned this before. Success in the music business is completely unpredictable. No one can really predict which artists will end up being successful. No one can really predict which song or album will be a hit. And a lot of times the songs, albums or artists that become the really big smash hits seem to just come out of the blue. They are often surprises to the record labels and artists themselves. The smaller hits and the minor hits seem almost predictable by comparison. The really big hits are truly outliers.In technical terms these smash hits are Black Swans. Further there appears to be a distinct lack of causality. By this I mean, spending money on radio promotion, publicity, advertising, production, videos etc etc seems to be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Sure it’s unlikely that a band with no budget or promotional push behind them is gonna be a massive hit. But having a million dollar promotional budget and the full might of Warner Music Group behind a band doesn’t guarantee success. Money might sometimes be a necessary condition but it is not sufficient.In fact it leads to success in perhaps 1 in 10 cases.*Sadly talent is overrated. Yes there are very talented artists and songwriters. While talent is a subjective quality there are clearly artists that we all seem to agree have talent. We can be objective and say they have talent. And to be sure these talented artists always have a much better chance of becoming stars. They have a much better chance of having hit songs, multi-platinum albums and large crowds at the their shows. But it is not guaranteed. In fact most “talented” artists do not become stars. T They toil in obscurity until they finally give up or become too old to be marketable. Its just a lucky few that make it. And it is luck.And the opposite is also true. Sometimes fairly untalented artists have big hits. Sometimes it’s the strange one hit wonders like Right Said Fred. Other times fairly untalented artists can have long and successful careers. Take for instance Kid Rock. This is not a jab. I believe there exists a scientific proof that can establish that Kid Rock is fairly untalented. I’m just stating facts. I have a feeling that Kid Rock might admit that he is fairly untalented and extremely lucky.Talent is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success.

ali

Yet everyone in the music business seems to think otherwise. Artists, managers, agents and record executives will argue otherwise. They will cite their own personal narratives that show how their actions and decisions led to some spectacular success. But there are always a few strange logical fallacies at work.“Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan”- arab proverb. What this means is not that a successful project has many fathers helping to guide it on it’s way to success. No, this means that many people claim to be associated or responsible for a project’s success no matter how tenuous. People play up their role in a successful project but downplay their role or completely disavow involvement in failures and disasters. It’s a genetically encoded survival feature of Homo Corporaticus. By doing this people artificially increase their win/loss ratio. Equity traders would say they fraudulently increase their alpha or skill quotient.This also helps create an illusion of causality. It helps us tell ourselves and others the lie that our actions decisions and theories usually result in great success. There’s also something called the narrative fallacy whereby an individual will look back on events and select a cause and effect narrative that brings order to what were really chaotic and random events and decisions.

Sta se stvarno desava:

I teach a class at University of Georgia about the music business. As part of the class I like to give the students a sort of proof by contradiction that outcomes in the music business can not be reliably duplicated and are highly unpredictable. Here’s how it goes:Suppose that the music business is perfectly rational and predictable. If that’s the case you could design a Hit Machine that models the music business. For example if you put inputs X Y and Z into the machine you get a predictable volume of sales or revenue out of the other end of the Hit Machine. Every time. No Variation.If there were a hit machine we would get the same result each time. The exact same sales. Each album generates the same revenue. Of course we know this is absurd. No one would really expect this to happen. We reasonably expect there to be variation in sales for each successive albums. No matter how firmly we control the inputs to the machine. There are just too many other variables. The songwriter is off his/her game on one song. Global cultural tastes change. Current events make a song’s subject less or more engaging… etc etc.So let’s redesign our Hit machine. We introduce some variation. A little randomness or pseudo randomness. Now we get something that seems more reasonable. If we put exactly the same “inputs” into the machine for each album you get varying sales out of the machine. In this case you get what mathematicians and statisticians call a “normal” or “gaussian” distribution. But as it turns out we know a lot about the variation in album sales. Album sales do not vary in this “normal” or “gaussian” way. They vary “wildly”.***And here wild is actually a real mathematical term. So if there is a hit machine it would have to generate wild variation in sales with the same inputs.****I’m skipping a few logical steps here but basically the conclusion is that the “inputs” to the hit machine – those things that the artists, managers, record labels, agents and songwriters have control over – have only a marginal effect on the end result. So marginal they are pretty much irrelevant. And if the cumulative actions of managers, labels, agents, artists, songwriters, producers and video directors have only a marginal influence on the outcome then it’s fair to say success in the music business is due to luck. or success in the music business is random or unpredictable.To use Michael Jackson as an example again off the wall had pretty much the same inputs as Thriller. Yet the results were wildly dfferent. 2 million vs 100 million. Or in gross revenue terms 16 million versus 800 million. You could plausibly argue with a straight face that $16 million dollars of Thriller was due to skill and $784 million dollars was the result of luck. I know this is an oversimplification but it still illustrates my point that most of the profit in the music business is not due to skill, talent or expertise.

Primer iz autorovog zivota (bio je muzicar):

The Dead Milkman were a punk band from Philadelphia. They put out their first album almost the same week Camper Van Beethoven released their first album. They were funny and irreverent like Camper Van Beethoven. Like CVB they mixed serious songs with silly punk rock anthems like “bitchin’ camaro”.Camper Van Beethoven was definitely a weirder ensemble but the bands were very very similar in many other ways. Our fanbase overlapped a good deal. They were also on a very small independent label. The same college radio stations played us. And they also were completely self directed.For the early part of our career the two bands were traveling in parallel. With the Dead Milkman being perhaps a little more popular than Camper Van Beethoven. But after the BBC airplay Camper Van Beethoven began to be to be regarded as more serious. Serious mainstream journalists began writing favorable stories about us. Spin magazine and The Village Voice featured us. We also began to garner interest from major record labels. IRS records which was on a hot streak came a-callin’. We turned them down but we were able to parlay our newfound gravitas into a distribution deal with Rough Trade Records. More importantly Rough Trade functioned as our label in the rest of the world bringing greater sales, publicity and radio play across Europe and Australia. Camper Van Beethoven quickly surpassed The Dead Milkman critically and commercially. It wasn’t until long after Camper Van Beethoven had disbanded that The Dead Milkman had their big commercial success with the MTV hit Punk Rock Girl and sadly they never acquired the gravitas that they deserved.

Ko hoce jos da cita o uticaju slucajnosti i srece sa osvrtom na industrije zabave (muzika, filmovi, TV, knjige) nek prelistaThe Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas TalebThe Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, Leonard Mlodinow