|
 
- 精华
- 1
- 积分
- 1548
- 经验
- 1548 点
- 威望
- 133 点
- 金钱
- 491 ￥
- 魅力
- 260
|
1.1.2 copyright
V1 by tracy175
第二篇 是讲版权的问题 copyright 有关maga company注重歌手的版权问题 为了控制市场 但这样会有碍文化的多元吧 具体的内容不记得了
考到了主旨题
V2 by jessicaxia
copyright system
第一段说，大部分的copyright集中于mega-company，它垄断了distribution networks，使得一些小众的东东不能出现在市面上。市场被同化，都是些大片等主流的东西，人们不能接触到小众的idea.
第二段说，这个copyright system有intrinsic缺陷。关于property. 对比了tune和chair, 说more access to a tune不会降低其效用，但是physical item比如chair，用的人多了，则会降低效用。
第三段接着第二段的chair 和tune, 继续解释。artist创作往往是要借鉴他人的东西，而借鉴多少算侵犯别人的copyright很难界定。所以copyright system会阻碍艺术的发展......最后说，现在的copyright system是不合理的。
考题：
1）under which circumstance will the international copyright system be less likely to hinder。。。
2）关于tune的，以下哪种说法正确？lz选的答案貌似是和效用有关的，就是把chair的特点反过来说
3）问mega-company导致了什么？lz选的答案好像与小众idea有关
4）主旨题
V3 by angella0228 710
第二个是说音乐版权的。
Para1：说那些有版权的公司让大众只接触大片、有名的音乐，而不能接触那些无名的音乐，让市场的音乐都很单调。
Para2：从传统观念说。财产是包括无形的东西的，如creativity.没人会觉得一个tune是一种property.
Para3:一小部分公司占了大部分得版权。只考虑这些music他们是否有特权 todistribute.
V4 by yueyilei
专利权，有个椅子和旋律的对比（有出题，往前找），还有就是批评大公司垄断专利（有两三道都是围绕这一论点来写的）。
V5 by 渔夫summer
有寂静上那个copyright, 说这个政策不好，有三段吧，第一段说少数companies 掌握了 the majority of copyrights. 所以 压制了diversity of artists 的创造空间啥的。。。第二段说其实怎样认识intellitual properties也 是不同的，比如说tunes大家下载了之后并不变的less uesful 而chairs 用过了之后就useless了 完了，第三段又说了神马大多数公司掌握了copyrights，但是他们并不进行创作，而是顾着挣钱，啥的。。。。 恩，好像是这么回事。。。。
V6 by sherryzhao
copyright，第一段说什么international corp不利于social diversity之类的意思
第二段应该是说copyright作为一个property的话，限制了大家的share，
V7 by rachewl1989 680
一篇音乐知识产权垄断的那个，也很长的。大概以第一段是说知识产权这个system不好，阻碍了什么的传播，使得垄断的那些公司的commercial作品占据了主流市场。然后当中介绍了一下无形资产这个概念，还用椅子做了比喻（这里有题，大概是问你无形资产的特点什么的，注意椅子那边的细节，我选的好像是不会因为有好多人用了就减少了什么的）然后最后一段又回过头来说公司的垄断对音乐市场的阻碍什么的。
感谢cgzjessieli同学提供原文
This development, however, has a major downside: companies owning massive amounts of copyrighted works can, at their whim, ban weaker cultural activities – not only from the marketplace, but also from the general audience's attention. This is happening under our very eyes. It is nigh impossible to ignore the blockbuster movies, bestselling books and top–chart records presented to us by these cultural molochs, who, incidentally, own almost every imaginable right to these works. As a result, most people are completely unaware of all those other, less commercialized activities taking place in music, literature, cinema, theater and other arts. This is a tremendous loss to society, because our democratic world can only truly thrive on a large diversity of freely expressed and discussed cultural expressions.
Contrary to what one might expect, the seemingly endless possibilities of copying and sampling using modern digital technologies have so far only aggravated the situation. Publicly offering even a mere second's worth of copyrighted work will almost certainly attract attention from lawyers on behalf of the "owners" of said material. Sound artists, who used to freely sample work from others to build new musical creations, are now treated as pirates and criminals. Whole copyright enforcement industries have emerged, scouting the digital universe day and night for even the smallest snippet of copyrighted work used by others – and those found out, often stand to lose literally everything they have.Copyright has yet another intrinsic fault which makes it difficult to maintain in a democratic society. Copyright nowadays revolves almost exclusively around so–called intellectual property. This is a problem, since the traditional notion of property is largely irreconcilable with intangible concepts such as knowledge and creativity; a tune, an idea or an invention will not lose any of its value or usefulness when it is shared among any number of people. In contrast, a single physical object, such as a chair, quickly becomes less useful when more people want access to it; in this latter case, the term "property" has a clear meaning and purpose. Unfortunately, in the past decades the legal definition of property has been extended way beyond any physical constraints. These days, almost anything can be someone's property, such as fragrances and colors; even the makeup of the proteins in our blood and the genes in our body cells are being claimed as the exclusive property of one company or another, which can subsequently bar anyone else from using it. It is therefore high time to reconsider the current concept of property.
With regard to artistic works, it is quite conceivable that no single person should have the right to claim exclusive ownership over, say, a particular tune. We all know that almost every work of art, and every invention, is based upon the work of predecessors. Now this doesn't mean we should have less respect for artists creating new works of art based on the work of others, and we're obliged to contribute to artists' well–being and income in our society. Yet rewarding their every single achievement, or reproduction or even interpretation thereof, with a monopoly lasting many decades, is too much, because it leaves nothing for other artists to build on. In fact, even criticizing the artist's work can become rather hazardous, as it "damages" his "property". Unpleasant as this may sound, things get even worse when we consider that the vast majority of copyrighted works is owned by a relatively small group of large conglomerates. These mega–industries create, invent or produce nothing at all, yet demand that artists sign over all rights to their works to them, just for the privilege of having their works distributed.
From this point of view, there is ample reason to send our current system of copyright to the scrapheap. Artists will of course feel threatened by such a bold move. After all, without copyright, they will lose all means of existence, now won't they? Well, not necessarily. Let's first look at some numbers. Research by economists shows that only 10 percent of artists collect 90 percent of copyright proceeds, and that the remaining 90 percent of artists must share the remaining 10 percent of proceeds. In other words: for the vast majority of artists, copyright has only marginal financial advantages. Then there's another peculiar fact: most artists have entered into some sort of covenant with the cultural industry – as if these two groups have even remotely similar interests! For example GEMA, the German copyright organization, sends approximately 70 percent of copyright proceeds abroad, mostly to the US, where several of the world's biggest cultural conglomerates reside. In this process, the average artist is nowhere to be seen. |
|
