I didn’t say anything about “value”, I said about copyright.
If it is copyrightable, then the original creator of the concept should have rights, and the clones should be considered plagiarism.
If it is not copyrightable, then it doesn’t matter who is the author, and Spotify can just do their own.
All that, and we haven’t even mentioned that Spotify can just change the terms of service and get rid of the white noise podcasts. They are no obligated in anyway to keep a creator that is not worth the business.
so, you don’t believe that people should profit from the redistribution of public domain works? I think the entire publishing industry would have something to say about that. Considering the amount of non-copyrightable/public domain material that is bought and sold commercially every day. That’s a pretty funky belief you’ve got there.
You’re right, spotify could release a competing distro, yet they aren’t.
then they should create their own competing distribution. They aren’t actually making any ambient soundscapes. not even white noise, let alone rain, wind, birds, crickets, etc. And what about all those copies of “which side are you one boy” and it’s many covers. you could make the same argument for any traditional music, but you’re not. You only care about “white noise” because you consider it to be low effort. Low effort is not no effort, and the people that put in the effort to create those files should be paid.
Are you confusing me with someone else on the thread? My argument was solely on the fact that white noise can not be copyrighted, nothing related to “effort”.
I didn’t say anything about “value”, I said about copyright.
If it is copyrightable, then the original creator of the concept should have rights, and the clones should be considered plagiarism.
If it is not copyrightable, then it doesn’t matter who is the author, and Spotify can just do their own.
All that, and we haven’t even mentioned that Spotify can just change the terms of service and get rid of the white noise podcasts. They are no obligated in anyway to keep a creator that is not worth the business.
so, you don’t believe that people should profit from the redistribution of public domain works? I think the entire publishing industry would have something to say about that. Considering the amount of non-copyrightable/public domain material that is bought and sold commercially every day. That’s a pretty funky belief you’ve got there.
You’re right, spotify could release a competing distro, yet they aren’t.
You are making my argument for me. Who is distributing in this case? I’d say that it is Spotify.
then they should create their own competing distribution. They aren’t actually making any ambient soundscapes. not even white noise, let alone rain, wind, birds, crickets, etc. And what about all those copies of “which side are you one boy” and it’s many covers. you could make the same argument for any traditional music, but you’re not. You only care about “white noise” because you consider it to be low effort. Low effort is not no effort, and the people that put in the effort to create those files should be paid.
Are you confusing me with someone else on the thread? My argument was solely on the fact that white noise can not be copyrighted, nothing related to “effort”.