tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post7579476329203358348..comments2023-09-07T04:13:08.133-04:00Comments on johndegen.com: market me thisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger173125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-63742694383225439182008-06-29T09:51:00.000-04:002008-06-29T09:51:00.000-04:00I mention Chris as he is the primary voice you see...I mention Chris as he is the primary voice you see on the CCC website. If we created our tables, I would be putting Chris in the anti-Copyright list, and Michael Geist in the pro-Copyright list. This is largely because we (you and I it seems) have a different take on what Copyright is.<BR/><BR/>I defend and promote the comic because I agree with the message. I don't see it as anti-American at all, but opposed to specific policies that came out of the US Clinton/Gore government that has continued to be followed through by the Bush government. It is a policy direction that the vast majority of US citizens that understand the issue disagree with as well. Having a comic that provides a fully referenced history of the bogus process in Canada is extremely valuable, and the format is both informative and entertaining.<BR/><BR/>Sorry you looked at the cover and decided to dismiss one of the best educational tools that has been created for the Canadian part of the debate. I remain very proud to be added in as a relatively Jr. member of such an amazing group of fellow protectors of critical human rights.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>By iCopyright do you mean the <A HREF="http://www.accesscopyright.ca/Default.aspx?id=215" REL="nofollow">Access Copyright one-stop-shopping service</A>?<BR/><BR/>If so, all I can do is support in principle, but the devil is always in the details -- which I can't see online.<BR/><BR/>Is this collective licensing for individual works which an author has added to the repertoire to be licensed for specific uses?<BR/><BR/>If so, then I support it as strongly as I support the Creative Commons movement. This would essentially be a royalty-bearing version of the royalty-free Creative Commons, where the creator can easily tag "This use is free, this use is royalty, and I reserve other uses for individual contracts".<BR/><BR/>Win, Win, Win....<BR/><BR/>If available to all citizens to use, the benefits to the audience would be as great. This would effectively provide me the <A HREF="http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4755" REL="nofollow">"Buy me now" button</A> for that repertoire that I am always looking for!<BR/><BR/><BR/>But I can't tell from what I see online what AC's iCopyright is, so don't know if it is what I would hope it to be or something entirely different.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-51306675624951061432008-06-29T00:38:00.000-04:002008-06-29T00:38:00.000-04:00Russell,I know you have a lot on your plate, so yo...Russell,<BR/><BR/>I know you have a lot on your plate, so you may not have noticed, but Chris and I have disagreed quite publicly just recently. I'll leave it to you to look that up because in the end Chris and I are really a lot closer in philosophy, I suspect, than are you and I right now. Though, seriously, I still honour the bond we forged over lunch.<BR/><BR/>As to litigation, c'mon, I run a creator association that has morally and financially supported a copyright lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court (and in my mind, we won, except where we lost). I'm fine with suing. I just know that it is not always the smartest way to assert ones rights, and I am (somewhat desperately) trying to find other (better) ways - ways that involve mutual understanding and respect. Not to mention adult behaviours.<BR/><BR/>You've challenged me to defend my bond with Chris -- and I do defend it. Chris is a brilliant writer and a brilliant mind who disagrees profoundly with you. He and I have our own disagreements, but I know where his heart is, and I respect that, as I do the positioning of your heart. <BR/><BR/>Tell me, how do you continue to feel comfortable with that ridiculous comic book advertised on your blog?<BR/><BR/>By the way, and speaking of permissions (as you were) I think everyone would appreciate your views on the iCopyright model.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-51052331326365519232008-06-28T11:06:00.000-04:002008-06-28T11:06:00.000-04:00JohnD,Any time a group is seen to be a big tent, y...JohnD,<BR/><BR/>Any time a group is seen to be a big tent, you find that people don't agree in that tent. I am involved in this debate not because I think Copyright should be thrown away, but that taking away our right to make our own technology choices (what tech to buy, what software to run, etc) is simply a wrong way to try to protect Copyright.<BR/><BR/>Do you fully agree with everything that Chris writes on the <A HREF="http://www.creatorscopyright.ca/" REL="nofollow">Creators' Copyright Coalition homepage</A>? I find his views to be as extreme as those you wish to declare as "opponents" or "anti-Copyright".<BR/><BR/>Anyone that doesn't agree with a very narrow idea of what Copyright is or should be seems to be declared anti-Copyright. This is simply a joke considering Chris, the most prominent representative of CCC, is an advocate of collective licenseing for everything, which is effectively a wiping out the 'permission' requirement for copyright that enables the full spectrum of methods of production, distribution and funding.<BR/><BR/>Or how about yourself -- Copyright is a set of activities which require permission from the copyright holder, and if you do these things without permission the copyright holder has the right to sue. Declaring that you don't want to sue anyone for infringing your rights is declaring that you don't consider Copyright to have any value. That is about as anti-Copyright a position as I can think of.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If the two of us were to create a table of orgs and people we consider pro-Copyright and anti-Copyright I suspect our lists would be extremely different. We would both put the abolitionists into the anti-copyright side, but otherwise...Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-34555612415356201232008-06-28T10:46:00.000-04:002008-06-28T10:46:00.000-04:00Sir, In fact, I think you and I are a lot closer o...Sir, <BR/><BR/>In fact, I think you and I are a lot closer on this topic than we might appear. I am also not quite clear on the stat damage implications and whether or not they would work as designed, or even should. And as I indicated earlier and elsewhere, I think the whole issue of digital locks on content <I>and</I> devices needs to be looked at more closely during the debate and amendment period for this piece of legislation.<BR/><BR/>What's interesting to me right now is that both examples you used to discuss stat damages involved clear and everyday infringement of copyright, but that has somehow become a side point in a discussion about copyright law. <BR/><BR/>There are many smart people currently in the KillBillC61 camp who <I>could</I> do very helpful work on this bill to turn it into something that highlights and promotes the current very real problems both creators and large corporations are dealing with in protecting their copyright, while dialing back any potential heavy handedness leading to user abuse. <BR/><BR/>Instead, we all just seem to accept copyright has no chance of being respected (we differ on why that is -- some like to rationalize bad behaviour because it seems to be the only behaviour they can muster). There's a divide and conquer strategy going on over at KBC61, where some counsel greater individual creator enforcement through lawsuits, while others in the same camp wait for that to happen so they can publicly scold us for doing so.<BR/><BR/>To me the great shame in all of this is not the bill, its contents, discussions of locks or lawsuits or any of that. To me the great shame is the monumentally simplistic, childish, nakedly political and opportunistic protest that has become KillBillC61, the Facebook group, and the neverending and entirely unwelcome talking point comments from soap-box pretenders to Michael Geist's throne.<BR/><BR/>The stink of hypocrisy is almost too rank to stand right now. And let me stress, Sir, I don't mean from you or your comments. Based on what you've written here, I hope you show up for committee hearings in the fall and say your piece.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-5506529373094773452008-06-28T10:43:00.000-04:002008-06-28T10:43:00.000-04:00I try yet again to ask for relationship clarity on...I try yet again to ask for relationship clarity on the content/device locks in:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4750" REL="nofollow">Copyright: locks, levies or lawsuits? Part1: locks</A><BR/><BR/>I would take Infringer's question and ask what is wrong with the well known set of legal relationships we already have such as "ownership" and "rental" that we have to create yet another relationship without any prior legal or other history?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sir said: "I am not asking for corporations to drop device locks, I am asking for governments not to specifically protect them with large statutory fines towards individual private citizens when circumventing them."<BR/><BR/>My perspective is different. I believe that it should only be the owner of something that should be able to apply a lock to something, or authorize a lock to be applied to something. I would not only not legally protect unauthorized third-party locks, but I would outlaw them.<BR/><BR/>This to me is simply common sense. The problem is that too many people don't understand the science behind these locks, so aren't adequately asking the question of who owns the various things that are being locked.<BR/><BR/>Content cannot "make decisions" on its own -- a paperback book cannot read itself out loud, and information doesn't become "magic" when you digitally encode it.<BR/><BR/>Once we get past this problem and have people understand the difference between science and science fiction, I suspect many of the more silly aspects of the "debate" will go away.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-73121091603739547572008-06-28T03:35:00.000-04:002008-06-28T03:35:00.000-04:00"corps drop their device locks, everyone will volu..."corps drop their device locks, everyone will voluntarily respect the good faith investment they've put into this clearly valuable intellectual property."<BR/><BR/>I am not asking for corporations to drop device locks, I am asking for governments not to specifically protect them with large statutory fines towards individual private citizens when circumventing them. That is all.<BR/><BR/>I am all for strong copyright law but when digital locks are in their own special high statutory damage area in the bill it becomes confused. <BR/><BR/>Example under bill C-61: I download 30 avi movies off the internet onto my computer. 500$ statutory damages total.<BR/><BR/>I convert one DVD I bought into a avi file using a program designed for that reason. 20,000$ Statutory damages per DVD I convert.<BR/><BR/>Why is that fair for artists and consumers?<BR/><BR/>Easier yet, why does that make sense at all?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02717850508178344709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-7882364783487455912008-06-28T00:23:00.000-04:002008-06-28T00:23:00.000-04:00I would really like one person on the pro-C61 side...I would really like one person on the pro-C61 side to explain why these locks should be protected in copyright law at all?<BR/><BR/>If the corporations really want these locks then what is stopping them from getting the legal protection they seek through contract law and rental agreements instead?<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't be without precedent. For example this is exactly what GM did to stop people from messing with their their first experimental electric vehicles. ( google GM EV1 )<BR/><BR/>I know what my answer is, but I'd really like to know what the sincere pro-C61 reasoning is.<BR/><BR/>Dare I ask? John, do you have an intelligent rational for this without being a smart ass?Infringerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027713772050821748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-75560632390822027492008-06-27T23:09:00.000-04:002008-06-27T23:09:00.000-04:00"What we have now is a stand off where one side is..."What we have now is a stand off where one side is saying "you need to drop your weapons so we can take all your stuff and ultimately destroy you.""<BR/><BR/>Not really -- what we have now is people who understand the nature of the 'weapons' at hand trying to warn you that you have aimed your own weapon at your own head, and that we are all going to die from the blast you will be firing off.<BR/><BR/>Then again, you will reject my analogy because you have already rejected my scientific evaluation of the technology in question.<BR/><BR/>There is no indication that there is a movement away from third-party locks. The recording industry is reducing their usage of the locks in their battles against the anti-competative effects of these locks from Apple, but that is really an insignificant impact. More locked hardware (where the owner doesn't control the keys) is shipped every year, and all indications from the hardware vendors is that this will continue to increase.<BR/><BR/>Notice that we are talking about locked cell phones with C-61, but not with C-60. C-60 used the WIPO treaty language of tieing anti-circumvention to infringement, and thus had nowhere near the harmful "unintended" consequences as C-61.<BR/><BR/>And no, there can't be acknowledgement about the potential that people will abuse technology to infringe copyright as that is an issue entirely separate from the abuses of technical measures which are incapable of reducing copyright infringement. There is that science problem again...<BR/><BR/>I wish I could assure you that people would stop infringing copyright, but you have more control over that than I do. I can pledge that if someone infringes my copyright that I will leverage copyright and existing community legal support to appropriately sue them if they don't comply -- you have said already that you would not.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-2310170387213540372008-06-27T22:43:00.000-04:002008-06-27T22:43:00.000-04:00Never too late, Sir. We could use a bit of genuine...Never too late, Sir. We could use a bit of genuine speculation and respectful comment here.<BR/><BR/>It <I>could</I> indeed go the way you describe it. <BR/><BR/>My guess is it won't. Despite the panic, we do still, and will continue to, live in a mostly well-regulated market economy. Content locks appear to be well out of favour. If the market steeled itself against truly intrusive or invasive device locks, they wouldn't last a season. <BR/><BR/>I think what is missing from the other side on this -- and by that I mean the loud, proud, not entirely forthright leaders of the C-61 protest -- is some assurance that when the corps drop their device locks, everyone will voluntarily respect the good faith investment they've put into this clearly valuable intellectual property. Did I say assurance? I should have said some simple recognition that such a scenario is even at issue.<BR/><BR/>What we have now is a stand off where one side is saying "you need to drop your weapons so we can take all your stuff and ultimately destroy you."<BR/><BR/>Not so enticing. And really, really unrealistic.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-62134894125812088442008-06-27T19:45:00.000-04:002008-06-27T19:45:00.000-04:00I'm late to the party on this post but..."The mark...I'm late to the party on this post but...<BR/>"The market is encouraging the voluntary removal of unnecessary locks, then what difference does it make if we have a law protecting necessary locks?"<BR/><BR/>Though law you are adding more value to "unnecessary locks" then they were worth before hand. That value could cause the market to go the other direction adding more unnecessary locks.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02717850508178344709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-5278767074047334082008-06-26T15:03:00.000-04:002008-06-26T15:03:00.000-04:00"I realize there is a lot of anger and fear in thi..."I realize there is a lot of anger and fear in this debate, but we have to ask ourselves why it is that we can have self-serve checkout at the grocery store, but not an honour system for Copyright."<BR/><BR/>Surveillance. Self-serve check-out is not based on the honour system. It's based on surveillance. Try it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-2661439887446816692008-06-20T13:02:00.000-04:002008-06-20T13:02:00.000-04:00"I don't think we can rely on an honour system"I r..."I don't think we can rely on an honour system"<BR/><BR/>I realize there is a lot of anger and fear in this debate, but we have to ask ourselves why it is that we can have self-serve checkout at the grocery store, but not an honour system for Copyright.<BR/><BR/>Contrary to your claim that people will just access entertainment in whatever format it is offered, entertainment is an entirely optional "bonus" of society, while food is mandatory. If an honour system were to fail, it should be in basic necessities not bonuses.<BR/><BR/>By the way, you simply don't know how many people are choosing to "opt out". If you look at the statistical methods used by the entertainment and software manufacturing industries, they do not adequately differentiate between infringement and "opting out". I'm not suggesting that all their alleged infringement is actually "opt out", but a good percentage is (IE: the estimated error in their calculation of Open Source software usage is about 3/4 of the so-called "software piracy")<BR/><BR/><BR/>I think that as you think about it it will come down to a problem of ill-will between some copyright holders and some users of copyright works. The ill-will is not with "all" of either category, but a sufficient number of people in each to increase emotions to a boiling point where only the ill-will is growing, not respect.<BR/><BR/>JohnD is right that this issue is basically about respect. Unfortunately where I believe that respect needs to be a two-way street, JohnD often suggests it should be unilateral.<BR/><BR/><BR/>My main point in this debate is to try to remind people that it is not possible to have a viable technological solution to a social problem. When problems and solutions come from entirely different areas of science, then the collateral damage and unintended consequences will guarantee that the solution will fail. In the case of the NII policy, I believe that the "cure" is far worse than the "disease", but it isn't possible to convince an emotional person wanting "something to be done" that the currently proposed "something" isn't helpful.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If we ever get past our current emotional blockage and attempt to move forward with trying to find social solutions to social problems, we will then have a much better chance at success.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-77780224277056980442008-06-20T12:20:00.000-04:002008-06-20T12:20:00.000-04:00I keep wanting to stop, but you make some very goo...I keep wanting to stop, but you make some very good points.<BR/><BR/>Too many things are bundled together that don't fit together, you're right.<BR/><BR/>Plenty of people want to have royalty-free business models and that's fine.<BR/><BR/>Some people don't, and that should be fine, too.<BR/><BR/>It is tricky, how the payment would work, but it is possible. I will keep coming back to the fact that as long as there is a desire from consumers to purchase the product, making a workable marketplace is possible.<BR/><BR/>Rightly or wrongly, though, I don't think we can rely on an honour system - I think there's been enough evidence in the world - with lots of products and services - that this doesn't work.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-72002277730596244652008-06-20T11:32:00.000-04:002008-06-20T11:32:00.000-04:00"It would be a sad day if it was all thrown in a p..."It would be a sad day if it was all thrown in a pool and the only artist the world knew was "Anonymous.""<BR/><BR/>The moral right of attribution, and other aspects of Copyright (Moral right of integrity, material rights) are entirely different.<BR/><BR/>If someone put a proposal to make attribution perpetual while at the same time reducing and clarifying the term of integrity/material rights (fixed terms, registration, etc), I would support it.<BR/><BR/>But it is entirely unreasonable to demand attribution at the same time as demanding that there be "no formalities" to create tools to allow us reasonably determine who to attribute.<BR/><BR/>The way books work of having the author clearly listed in the front of the book is the exception to the general case for copyrightable works.<BR/><BR/>For the vast majority of current works under copyright, which come under "functional" or "memory extensions", determining who to attribute is nearly impossible.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-56381530210835131922008-06-20T11:25:00.000-04:002008-06-20T11:25:00.000-04:00"We're only talking about a piece of work when it ..."We're only talking about a piece of work when it becomes a piece of commerce.<BR/><BR/>I think as long as someone wants to spend money specifically on a work I created, I could get a tiny, tiny cut."<BR/><BR/>Most of the recent changes to Copyright have been to regulate non-commercial activities, so what you propose is quite radical.<BR/><BR/>I also wonder how you propose to handle royalty-free business methods? Saying that you should "get a cut" has been translated by many business model intermediaries (Collective societies and their supporters like JohnD) to mean compulsory royalty payments.<BR/><BR/>A requirement to pay royalty payments on me is identical to a refusal to license, given I don't charge royalty payments for any of my work and thus can't pay any royalty payments for any of the inputs.<BR/><BR/>This isn't uniquely a software issue -- there are royalty-free business models that cross all forms of human creativity.<BR/><BR/>If this new exclusive right you propose (Lets not call it copyright as this has a different meaning) only charged flow-through royalties on royalty-bearing derivative works, and mandated a registration system so we all knew who was receiving these royalties (hopefully creators and not old-economy intermediaries), then we could have an interesting conversation about how long this very different non-Copyright regime could last.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately the suggestion that ISPs and device manufacturers should be paying royalties for copyright holder based on the claim that the "only" use for these technologies is the delivery of royalty-bearing content closes the possibility of reasonable debate on this proposal.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-74587080984650543452008-06-19T17:44:00.000-04:002008-06-19T17:44:00.000-04:00(I wrote a great response and Blogger ate it)Oh we...(I wrote a great response and Blogger ate it)<BR/><BR/>Oh well. If we're lucky, we all get old, Russell :)<BR/><BR/>I thnk there's a clear distinction here. We're only talking about a piece of work when it becomes a piece of commerce. <BR/><BR/>I think as long as someone wants to spend money specifically on a work I created, I could get a tiny, tiny cut. After all, it's a specific purchase of a specific work, it's not random ideas.<BR/><BR/>If my work inspires someone else to write another book or a play or to take some photos, that's fine, that becomes theirs. I was certainly inspired by an infinite amount of things. <BR/><BR/>Now, I know I cloud things a little by saying that paying for the internet connection makes it a commercial transaction, but I feel if they want that specific work and they can't pay for the connection, they'll still have to pay for the work somewhere else.<BR/><BR/>This only becomes an issue because money changes hands. It is the purchaser's intent to buy a specific work. The question is how the purchaser's money should then be divided up.<BR/><BR/>It would be a sad day if it was all thrown in a pool and the only artist the world knew was "Anonymous."<BR/><BR/>(really, this was much better the first time. I was inspired. Damned Blogger ;)John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-32963520371983374872008-06-19T17:04:00.000-04:002008-06-19T17:04:00.000-04:00I've learned over the years not to ask people if t...I've learned over the years not to ask people if they think copyright should be perpetual. Once someone says yes, based on a believe that any human creativity has ever existed that doesn't build on the past, then it is hard for me to take any other aspect of the conversation seriously.<BR/><BR/>"And that Jefferson argument just doesn't work when applied to artistic work."<BR/><BR/>That is exactly the context he was using it in 1813, and we'll obviously have to agree to disagree that it doesn't apply to artistic works (Not only literary works which was the focus of the day, but also visual art).<BR/><BR/>At the time he spoke it there really wasn't much of the functional or memory-enhancement form of copyrightable works that exists today, so he was clearly not talking about them -- although in these cases the old fiction-book-style copyright being applied to them is even worse.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ironically, in his day it was the Europeans that were being draconian with their copyright and the US as a young country was looking more towards future creativity than backwards into the past. Funny how a few hundred years some things change, and some things stay the same.<BR/><BR/>We still have some people looking backwards to protecting the interests of past creators, and others looking forward to focusing on the interests of new creators.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if I'll ever be old enough to be more focused on the past than the future in my thinking about human creativity.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-39649567286447903842008-06-19T16:37:00.000-04:002008-06-19T16:37:00.000-04:00"What if Shakespeare's heirs never gave permission..."What if Shakespeare's heirs never gave permission for West Side Story? What if all the multitude of fairy tale authors never gave Disney permission to reinterpret those works." <BR/><BR/>What ifs are tough. We'd just have to write new stuff. But I don't think it's ever happened. There was just a case where Nabakov's son was trying to decide if he should follow his father's wishes and burn his final, unpublished manuscript or offer it to publishers. Guess which one he chose.....<BR/><BR/>I have a friend who is a fantastic guitar player. And he writes pretty good songs. But he doesn't want his art to cross the line into commerce so he doesn't record tham and he doesn't sell them, he just plays them for himself and his friends. It's his choice.<BR/><BR/>But once art crosses that line it becomes part of the world of commerce.<BR/><BR/>There would always be a gray area of how much inspiration could be used from another's work. Each instance would be specific, of course, as each work of art is unique. Just like satire and parody. It's difficult, no doubt about it, but we're clever people, we can work it out if we really want to.<BR/><BR/>Economics 101 (it was called something else when I took it in 1981) "The value of something is determined by what someone will give up to aquire it." So, I still think that any art that people are willing to give up money to aquire has value and the creator should be in for (an admittedly tiny) cut. Or they should at least be asked. The instances of it being priced out of the marketplace or refused would be incredibly rare.<BR/><BR/>And, you know, I think the loss of polite society is a shame. Iput up with a lot of rudeness, but I don't have tolike it. And it may make me even grouchier than I was.<BR/><BR/>Lessig may be right that we're a less and less free society but the reason for that may not be what you think. <BR/><BR/>In this debate, for example, no matter what Russell says, the demands for more and more stringent copyright controls are almost exclusively the result of masses of people simply ignoring the old rules. Not saying the old rules needed to be discussed and upgraded, but saying they just don't care about them. As I said, to be surprised that people pushed back is beyond naive.<BR/><BR/>People want to sell you stuff, they don't really want to limit your access, they want you to buy more and more. And they don't want to spend money on DRMs and other stuff. They just don't want you putting it up in the web and letting anyone who paid the price of admission walk by and take it.<BR/><BR/>We keep talking about a balance. Completely open public domain isn't a balance.<BR/><BR/>And that Jefferson argument just doesn't work when applied to artistic work. It's the difference between the "utterabce of the idea," and stringing a thousand ideas together in a specific order.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-86949521535282300742008-06-19T15:55:00.000-04:002008-06-19T15:55:00.000-04:00Yes, frankly. If they want to put a reasonable pri...<I>Yes, frankly. If they want to put a reasonable price on it for people to buy, then people will. If they price it out of the marketplace, we'll buy someone else's. We really could live without new editions of Shakespeare.</I><BR/><BR/>That is interesting. I don't think I ever quite realized how (from my perspective) radical you views were. <BR/><BR/>It's not a question of selling the work work at a reasonable price. It is a question of freedom of subsequent artists to derive works from it, and reinterpret it.<BR/><BR/>From your previous post:<BR/><I><BR/>"Now it is time to allow the rest of us to creatively explore the work without having to seek permission..."<BR/><BR/>Now that's just impolite. </I><BR/><BR/>This may well be true, but as politeness is a rather subjective quality, a rich and vibrant public domain is the freedom to be impolite.<BR/><BR/>What if Shakespeare's heirs never gave permission for West Side Story? What if all the multitude of fairy tale authors never gave Disney permission to reinterpret those works. Or possibly even work, forced the above creations to follow some preconceved notion of what the original artist thought was good art.<BR/><BR/>It is imperative that subsequent generations of artists have the freedom to reinterpret previous works as they wish. Without that freedom our culture stagnates.<BR/><BR/>Here is a compelling quote from Lawrence Lessig.<BR/><BR/>#Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.<BR/>#The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.<BR/>#Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.<BR/>#Ours is less and less a free society.Infringerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027713772050821748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-66450093783173718062008-06-19T14:29:00.000-04:002008-06-19T14:29:00.000-04:00"Now it is time to allow the rest of us to creativ..."Now it is time to allow the rest of us to creatively explore the work without having to seek permission..."<BR/><BR/>Now that's just impolite.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-14771382227923167662008-06-19T14:11:00.000-04:002008-06-19T14:11:00.000-04:00This is really the danger of working from home ;)"...This is really the danger of working from home ;)<BR/><BR/>"Just curious. Do you think copyright should be perpetual. Should Shakespeare's works still be under the control of Shakespeare's heirs?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, frankly. If they want to put a reasonable price on it for people to buy, then people will. If they price it out of the marketplace, we'll buy someone else's. We really could live without new editions of Shakespeare.<BR/><BR/>But so far, copyright holders have never priced something out of the marketplace.<BR/><BR/>Now, I did turn down an offer of film rights to my first novel and I'm sure glad those cheap bastards couldn't just go make their crappy movie anyway.<BR/><BR/>The problem with this idea that we 'can' have access to everything we want is how it's being abused into 'should' have access. There are now property laws that say if the owner isn't using the property to the full extent someone else could, it can be appropriated. These are being fought, of course, but they come from the same mindset.<BR/><BR/>My copyrights, your property rights. It should be up to us if we want to sell.<BR/><BR/>Russell's analogy of house values is specific to real estate and simply can't be extrapolated to anything else. It's also complicated by mortgage holders and property taxes. I have to clear my planned renovations with my mortgage holder and in many cases if the house is falling into such disrepair that it would really affect real estate values (which would most often require more than one house on a street for that effect - I mean, I live in the Beaches, talk to me about real estate values) it would likely have passed into a civil matter.<BR/><BR/>Look, I had to get my nieghbour to trim his trees. If he said he didn't want to, the city would have done it and charged him on his tax bills.<BR/><BR/>It's part of living in a community. We benefit from having neighbours and we have to put up with stuff from them, from time to time, We make allowances, we compromise.<BR/><BR/>We don't very often get everything completely the way we want it.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-36847072881567788692008-06-19T12:27:00.000-04:002008-06-19T12:27:00.000-04:00My god don't you people ever go home.I wont common...My god don't you people ever go home.<BR/><BR/>I wont common on all the posts this morning, but I would like to explore the last one of JohnF's a little more.<BR/><BR/><I>"It's the aquiring of it that gives it value. People want to own it (they don't just want to 'use' it, they want to own it)."</I><BR/><BR/>But this doesn't work in the other analogy I've heard Russell use often which is when your neighbour does not maintain their property, and as a result your property value is diminished. Should you be able to sue your neighbour for this lost value? Did he steal from you?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"As long as people continue to aquire my art, it will continue to hold -- no wait, fifty years after I die whether people continue to aquire my art or not, my legacy is out of the equation. Someone else will get all the benefits from peoples' desire to aquire it."</I><BR/><BR/>John, 50 years after you are dead you have had more than enough time to expliot this monopoly. It isn't "someone else" who will get all the benefit. It is EVERYONE else. Remember you allowed your work into our culture. You have been duly paid for your contribution. Now it is time to allow the rest of us to creatively explore the work without having to seek permission of the author who might disagree with the new work. <BR/><BR/>Just curious. Do you think copyright should be perpetual. Should Shakespeare's works still be under the control of Shakespeare's heirs?Infringerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027713772050821748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-41527638834024838022008-06-19T11:42:00.000-04:002008-06-19T11:42:00.000-04:00"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holde..."The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!"<BR/><BR/>I think you may still be confusing the idea of having unlimited access to the material with owning it.<BR/><BR/>It's very likely that all those technologies (well maybe not the camera) will be forced into obsolescence and you'll end up with a viewer of some kind and a monthly subscription to all the material you want.<BR/><BR/>You may not like this model (niether do I), but given the way the media industry has been going, I suspect it will happen. It will be a fairly easy sell to "most" people and captialism has little interest in the fringes of the marketplace.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-76309112170557847462008-06-19T11:34:00.000-04:002008-06-19T11:34:00.000-04:00Seriously, you guys can stay in the rec room as lo...Seriously, you guys can stay in the rec room as long as you want, but I need to move on -- other writing work to do. <BR/><BR/>Russell, I'm beyond left/right on this if you hadn't noticed. Personal voting histories have nothing to do with my approach to this issue -- though I am not at all surprised to hear you refer to yourself as a libertarian. You, and others, may appreciate that comic as some sort of comprehensive reference tool -- though comprehensive it is only on one side of the boat -- but a reasoned and nuanced advocacy tool it is not. In consciously and intentionally avoiding and/or ignoring reasoned arguments that do not support its position, it is propaganda, plain and simple. Celebrating it does nothing positive for your position, in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, there's a new posting on this blog. I'll be hanging out over there.<BR/><BR/>cheers,<BR/><BR/>--jdJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803855978550653817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-42619978841369116632008-06-19T11:30:00.000-04:002008-06-19T11:30:00.000-04:00"I've never understood why the reduction of the va..."I've never understood why the reduction of the value of copyright (whether lawful or unlawful) is considered "theft", but the reduction of value of other assets is not."<BR/><BR/>It's simple really. Let's take cigarettes as the example. the value of my shares will diminish if people smoke less.<BR/><BR/>The value of my copyrighted material will diminish if people stop paying me for it, but they may, in fact, continue to aquire it in even greater numbers.<BR/><BR/>It's the aquiring of it that gives it value. People want to own it (they don't just want to 'use' it, they want to own it). <BR/><BR/>As long as people continue to aquire cigarettes, the shares I own will continue to hold value.<BR/><BR/>As long as people continue to aquire my art, it will continue to hold -- no wait, fifty years after I die whether people continue to aquire my art or not, my legacy is out of the equation. Someone else will get all the benefits from peoples' desire to aquire it.John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.com