tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post5010402841611346305..comments2023-09-07T04:13:08.133-04:00Comments on johndegen.com: the fair/free dealing ruseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-10985094952243773292010-12-10T21:06:31.969-05:002010-12-10T21:06:31.969-05:00Hah. I've still got microfiche, and a viewer i...Hah. I've still got microfiche, and a viewer in my basement. While they may not have taken off in the academic world, they were widely used in business (I picked mine up when a company I was working for died).<br /><br />Have you looked at the license that MIT is using?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18354974465136846413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-62574331498913581392010-12-10T12:39:20.643-05:002010-12-10T12:39:20.643-05:00Wayne,
Please let me express my own worries, conc...Wayne,<br /><br />Please let me express my own worries, concerns and opinions. <br /><br />OpenCourseware is one proprietary model for online content delivery developed by MIT (among others, I believe). I feel no threat from them whatsoever. As I state in a more recent comment section, my "concern" is that creators maintain the controls over their work currently granted by copyright. <br /><br />If the broad educational community wants to adopt services like OpenCourseware, they are free to make that choice.<br /><br />This kind of service is NOT new, btw. It is simply a digital re-invention of the old scanned book microfilm subscription services that swept through libraries, colleges and universities in the late 20th century, promising to reviolutionize content delivery for the modern era. Whatever happened to those microiflms, anyway?<br /><br />But since we're talking about it, let's examine OpenCourseware. I naturally looked into a literature course... 21L.471 Major English Novels as taught in Spring 2004. The reading list is as one might expect - mostly public domain works from the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Only one work, a novel by Rushdie, is still covered by active copyright.<br /><br />Students have the choice of downloading a Project Gutenberg text file of all of the novels except the Rushdie. They are also given the choice of buying the texts online. That purchase option is always and only at Amazon.com. Why? Because Amazon has a private deal with OpenCourseware, kicking back 10% of the purchase price through their link. You can see how this whole "open" thing is really threatening corporate culture.<br /><br />There are also links to online readings that are, presumably, all freely available on the web, and therefore unlicenced for use in Opencourseware (likely under a fair use claim). These assigned readings lean very heavily on wikipedia entries, infoplease.com (All the Knowledge You Need), and something called Sparknotes, a web-based Cliffnotes like service that clearly sells student eyes to corporate advertisers such as... you guessed it Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Zellers.<br /><br />I feel great about where fair dealing for education is taking us.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-66838067086093837122010-12-10T11:50:46.707-05:002010-12-10T11:50:46.707-05:00Gruesome,
All of the books on copyright are wrong...Gruesome,<br /><br />All of the books on copyright are wrong, from one point of view or another.<br /><br />FYI, what John (and Access Copyright) is really concerned about is OpenCourseware.<br /><br />WayneAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18354974465136846413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-12565987170254725842010-12-10T11:49:00.243-05:002010-12-10T11:49:00.243-05:00John,
Behind in my reading. Re Post-Modernism, it...John,<br /><br />Behind in my reading. Re Post-Modernism, it didn't die, it was subsumed. It's influence shows up in a lot of modern novels.<br /><br />WayneAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18354974465136846413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-81623393972915768362010-12-04T21:26:21.281-05:002010-12-04T21:26:21.281-05:00John likes to try and marginalize those that offer...John likes to try and marginalize those that offer true balance because they're a threat to his extreme right view on copyright.<br />When I think of the decisions that need to be made on copyright and updating it for now and the future, I look on it's intended purpose and try to figure out how to maintain that.<br />Who undermines copyright?<br />Those that advocate for free and those that advocate diminishing fair use.<br />Copyright is a public trustGruesomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993466573477002853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-72265112890433008642010-12-04T20:46:03.367-05:002010-12-04T20:46:03.367-05:00While we debate post-modernism why not throw in so...While we debate post-modernism why not throw in some Antidisestablishmentarianism just for fun?<br /><br />John, just for the record I am not advocating "free culture", I think I've said a number of times I would like to see Artists have an increase in renumeration for their works. <br /><br />My point is the current copyright system was not designed with the reality of an unregulated public distribution system in mind, and I'm not sure it can just be patched up piecemeal. It may take some, I hate to use the term, "radical" solutions.<br /><br />I would prefer to see a cooperative intelligent approach rather than the reactionary mess we find ourselves in today. Either way, piecemeal or comprehensive, changes are obviously needed and time will tell what the eventual solutions will be.Crockettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-3129059906514849682010-12-04T20:36:24.171-05:002010-12-04T20:36:24.171-05:00I just put it out there because your own talk of c...I just put it out there because your own talk of copyright is filled with more hyperbolie than fact. I'm sorry about the grammar but I'm not a writer and certainly not as creative as you.Gruesomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993466573477002853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-6243853118839379472010-12-04T20:22:37.457-05:002010-12-04T20:22:37.457-05:00OK, I see, almost too pathetic to respond but here...OK, I see, almost too pathetic to respond but here goes, never read anything on copyright from lesig or Doctorow, I have read about 6 books all of which are now burried in boxes, Copyright Law from a Canadian citizens perspective; Copyright Law History, language theory and I can't remember. <br />Wait let me guess your response, I'm reading the wrong books<br />John I'm sure you can point to something on the extreme right.<br />Barry's book perhaps? I can't afford that oneGruesomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993466573477002853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-52064026983696171732010-12-04T20:21:05.415-05:002010-12-04T20:21:05.415-05:00Crockett,
You need to have more faith in the valu...Crockett,<br /><br />You need to have more faith in the value of truth and reality. Remember how post-modernism was going to permanently replace the fixtures of modernism? Maybe you don't. But I do, and of course, it didn't. <br /><br />What happened instead was that people were informed by the theory, some folks got real famous spreading that theory around over the course of a decade and half, and then people went back to writing and enjoying the literature they'd always enjoyed and wishing the post-modernists would stop taking themselves so seriously.<br /><br />Free culture, and its need to break down the doors of copyright are on the same path. <br /><br />One man's opinion.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-18328702795830559222010-12-04T20:15:03.422-05:002010-12-04T20:15:03.422-05:00Darryl,
Are you saying "What is copyright an...Darryl,<br /><br />Are you saying "What is copyright and is their any ownership?" is common knowledge?<br /><br />I thought it was a grammatically incorrect open-ended question that Gruesome attempted to answer with non-specifics, mixing different national treatments and ultimately leading to no conclusion of value.<br /><br />Of course, I put a premium on originality. I'm aware you think differently.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-1069051178683715422010-12-04T20:03:09.624-05:002010-12-04T20:03:09.624-05:00Don't get me wrong John, I believe in copyrigh...Don't get me wrong John, I believe in copyright and the benefits it brings. And yes it will evolve but that evolution should always reflect a balance between creators and society as a whole. <br />I don't understand your references but I understand you'd like to see this balance become more one-sided. Not suprising most people act out of their own Interest.<br />Once again you attack without logic or argument <br />GoodGruesomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993466573477002853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-34927664938513747882010-12-04T20:01:18.164-05:002010-12-04T20:01:18.164-05:00@John "We can help protect consumers from the...@John "We can help protect consumers from their own unrealistic expectations by spreading that fact around a little more, instead of conflating types of ownership. "I bought it, I own it" has limitations in the world of creative content."<br /><br />I do not think that is possible at this point John. Consumer expectations have shifted and jelled to the point that trying to turn back the clock would be a misapplication of effort.<br /><br />I could be proved wrong in this. but I expect it is the content industry that is going to have to blink first. It may not be all bad, remember how the VCR was going to be the death of the industry? How many billions has that generated? Shifting technology and consumer expectations need not be the dire ends envisioned. The smart players will be the ones ready to move into the cracks created by this technological shift.Crockettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-21242103438168629362010-12-04T20:00:02.758-05:002010-12-04T20:00:02.758-05:00So John, does the fact that what Gruesome says is ...So John, does the fact that what Gruesome says is pretty much common knowledge, lessen its value? <br /><br />Given the prevalence of legal protection for DRM in this bill which subverts important aspects of copyright, I think what Gruesome says bares repeating. Loudly and frequently.<br /><br />I would also suggest that the majority of what you say about copyright is hardly original either.<br /><br />BTW, you could also have read the same perspective in the Supreme Court CCHC decision, the US Court of Appeals on jail breaking, and the US constitution itself. Not an original perspective by any means, but certainly not one which Minister Moore has heard enough.Darrylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-71877088308547786202010-12-04T19:54:51.785-05:002010-12-04T19:54:51.785-05:00Wayne,
A very sporting offer.
I'm a bit con...Wayne,<br /><br />A very sporting offer. <br /><br />I'm a bit confused about what you mean. Why did you drop Blogger for Wordpress? Would Wordpress stop Gruesome from writing wholly unoriginal comments?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-61066403952359058622010-12-04T19:45:23.119-05:002010-12-04T19:45:23.119-05:00John,
That's why I dropped Blogger for Word P...John,<br /><br />That's why I dropped Blogger for Word Press. While I don't agree with many of your opinions, if you decide to migrate, I would be happy to help you make the switch.<br /><br />WayneAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18354974465136846413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-36444933581258484632010-12-04T19:19:34.865-05:002010-12-04T19:19:34.865-05:00So it comes to this, does it, Gruesome?
I could ...So it comes to this, does it, Gruesome? <br /><br />I could have written that last comment by cobbling together bits and pieces from the wikipedia pages for Lessig and Doctorow.<br /><br />Thank goodness the committee is hearing from thinkers, and not just from repeaters.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-64336982407108760562010-12-04T16:23:54.234-05:002010-12-04T16:23:54.234-05:00What is copyright and is their any ownership?
Cop...What is copyright and is their any ownership? <br />Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted(notice the word granted) by the law to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. Exceptions and limitations to these rights strive to balance the public interest in the wide distribution of the material produced and to encourage creativity. Exceptions include fair dealing and fair use, and such use does not require the permission of the copyright owner.<br />Copyright owner. All other uses require permission and copyright owners can license or permanently transfer or assign their exclusive rights to others.<br />Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression or fixation. Copyright protection applies for a specific period of time, after which the work is said to enter the public domain.<br /><br />In discussing copyright there seems to be much inference that it is more than this. <br />And obviously some wish it were more.Gruesomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993466573477002853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-45728870216039632082010-12-04T09:02:21.999-05:002010-12-04T09:02:21.999-05:00If the consumer doesn't respect the law, then ...If the consumer doesn't respect the law, then there is no way that they law will ever work. This is the very crucial things that a lot of the creators (or at least those who propose to represent them) do not seem to get.<br /><br />I've said similar things to this before, but Pandora's box is open, and you are not going to get it closed by legislation.Chris Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-36771640459666916782010-12-03T21:18:55.735-05:002010-12-03T21:18:55.735-05:00I can understand the anger and desire to punish th...I can understand the anger and desire to punish those who's behavior is hurting your industry. But if cooler heads can prevail and energy is instead put towards generating good will, positive PR and creating increased value then that will be of more benefit to your bottom lines.<br /><br />The sad but still relevant fact is the public, having it's own parallel distribution system, has the upper hand in this battle. Technological or legislative efforts are unlikely to succeed as enforcement is near impossible.<br /><br />Therefore it is incumbent on the creative industry, for it's own well being and survival, to court the public rather than trying to regulate it. <br /><br />I have made some suggestions to those ends in my previous posts, but other solutions or enticements may work better. But what has to happen first is a cognitive shift on both the part of industry and the public to do things differently. Things just continuing down the current road does not look to get any better for anyone.Crockettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-6047190441800750772010-12-03T21:18:01.514-05:002010-12-03T21:18:01.514-05:00John, my posts were were written on your site firs...John, my posts were were written on your site first, with you in mind, then cross posted to Geist's site.<br /><br />It sounds like we do have some common ground here, and I acknowledge your point that some of the things I suggested are being implemented in some sectors.<br /><br />On the topic of disrespect for copyright, that is really a chicken and the egg dilemma. It is true infringement took off when file sharing became easier but was that explosion the seed of disrespect or a consequence of it, or both? <br /><br />Regardless of the blame one thing is evident, it exists. Now the question is how to fix it? Will harsher deterrents do the trick? That has not be the case in other parts of the world it has been tried, I fail to see why it would be different here.Crockettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-70019661042190655292010-12-03T21:16:02.343-05:002010-12-03T21:16:02.343-05:00Whoops, that was more than two sentences wasn'...Whoops, that was more than two sentences wasn't it? 0_o <br /><br />I'll try not to drain the orthography bin next time.Crockettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-10821867886679212312010-12-03T20:47:12.283-05:002010-12-03T20:47:12.283-05:00Suing customers in Canada would probably be the wo...Suing customers in Canada would probably be the worst move the content industry could make. It will reinforce the perception that it is American big business who is running the show. It will have the absolute opposite consequences intended. France, with the harshest IP penalty laws on the planet, has seen an INCREASE in infringement since it's law were enacted. <br /><br />I don't say this so infringers can have a free ride, just a warning that this is not a wise remedy.Crockettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-5259885571311861562010-12-03T19:51:04.636-05:002010-12-03T19:51:04.636-05:00@Jason
I would imagine that each collective has it...@Jason<br />I would imagine that each collective has its own rules for distribution of damages that may be awarded in a court proceeding. In certain instances, a creator collective may have the resources to pursue copyright infringement where its individual creator members simply don’t. It’s one of the strengths of collectives. However, the reality – and Geist’s did not mention it in his ‘$5000 is an awful lot of money’ commentary at the Committee – is that it is highly unlikely that any individual rights-holder or collective would pursue an all-in $5000 statutory damage award in light of the costs associated with litigation. And bear in mind $5000 would be the maximum a court could grant if the Bill were to become law. The proposal to reduce the statutory damage range to between $100 and a maximum of $5,000 for all works and all infringements for “non-commercial purposes” only serves to weaken copyright collaterally. <br />I think this proposal stands to hurt the ‘little-guy’ copyright holder more than it would the Disneys of the world. In any event, it has little to do with preventing disproportionate statutory damages awards. Query how many times a Canadian court has made such disproportionate award against a person who infringed copyright for a non-commercial purpose. I believe the answer is zero.Warrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-52793100182664280532010-12-03T16:46:18.894-05:002010-12-03T16:46:18.894-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-36256352417807271372010-12-03T16:46:14.605-05:002010-12-03T16:46:14.605-05:00cont'd
I really don't think the same can ...cont'd<br /><br />I really don't think the same can be honestly stated about consumer practice in cultural consumption over the past decade. High prices, lawsuits, DRM -- these are all after-the-fact rationalizations for a pretty sad pile-on to suddenly free content once file-sharing became easy. A forthright discussion of copyright would take that point as settled.<br /><br />Public funding for the arts is a wonderful thing. It should continue and be increased. But it is not a substitute for fair royalty payments based on use. From the unknown to the Gaga, if the content is used, the creator should be paid.<br /><br />Your "building bridges and schools" analogy is not offensive, but it does seem odd to me that you are advocating for things that are already happening. Cultural creators, to begin with, are probably the most generous group with their time and product. If not, they are certainly as generous as any other group. Despite this generosity, rampant infringement continues. <br /><br />Whether filesharing is harmful or helpful to certain cultural products is a side point and irrelevant to the central discussion. Infringement is counter to the polite agreement creators make with society when they release their work. It's wrong. Filesharing without consent is wrong. There is no justification.<br /><br />Since it is wrong, and illegal, there is absolutely no reason why copyright holders should not have the option to sue with prejudice to protect their rights. However you may personally feel about RIAA, they had the right to sue. Blaming those lawsuits retroactively for the disrespect of copyright is an extremely twisted form of victim blaming.<br /><br />Meanwhile, RIAA has softened their perfectly justifiable tactics, iTunes songs have no TPMs and many more cultural content producers and creators are working out new permissions and privileges for consumers. There is simply no need to remove or weaken the important rights of these stakeholders to provide something for consumers that is either here already or on the way.<br /><br />Obviously in this discussion I prioritize protecting creators and their partners. I don't think we do that by removing existing rights and saying "let's do something else for them instead." The premium deals you describe are a possible solution, but they already exist and do not need to be legislated - in fact, legislating them would harm creators.<br /><br />I am not against protecting consumers. I am a consumer and I hate being ripped off. But I also make it my business to understand what I'm buying and manage my expectations properly. Ifr something seems not worth it or too expensive, I don't buy. As a consumer, I protect myself from bad actors in the marketplace. <br /><br />In terms of fair dealing, we might just be at odds. I don't think anything currently in fair dealing guarantees consumers unlimited access to creative content. I've said a million times, when you buy a DVD you are not buying a movie; you are buying a copy of a movie.<br /><br />We can help protect consumers from their own unrealistic expectations by spreading that fact around a little more, instead of conflating types of ownership. "I bought it, I own it" has limitations in the world of creative content. That's just a copyfact. The law says to creators "You made it, you own it," and that copyfact does not change on the sale of copies.<br /><br />Now please. Two sentence responses only.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.com