| |||||||||||||
Copyright abolitionistsCopyright abolitionistsPosted Jun 25, 2010 23:20 UTC (Fri) by jrn (subscriber, #64214)In reply to: ASCAP Declares War on Free Culture (ZeroPaid) by gmaxwell Parent article: ASCAP Declares War on Free Culture (ZeroPaid)
I am not sure the line you want to draw is always there. You have described two groups:
1. artists that use permissive licensing as a way to compete better
But you have left out a possible third, more radical group:
3. artists that want to abolish copyright to avoid complications when they sell their services
(Log in to post comments)
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 25, 2010 23:42 UTC (Fri) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Your point 3 makes no sense; it would be like the artists shooting themselves in the head. It is the copyright laws that give the artist the right to license their material any way they want.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 26, 2010 1:11 UTC (Sat) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
It makes plenty of sense. The key is 'sell their services' not 'sell licences'. In the same way that Redhat can give away the software and sell support services a musician could give away the recordings and sell performance services.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 26, 2010 12:34 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Red tape kills many a project.
Now, I happen to like certain types of red tape. I don't think you /should/ be able to roll up on the big common in my city with trucks full of audio gear and put on a free concert with no crowd control, no police awareness, no first aid crew, etc.
But the copyright red tape means a local venue may refuse to play your music solely because they're afraid of the bureaucracy. They've been told they have to pay a fee to the racketeer to play music, and they don't want to do that, and they can't take your word for it that this is an exception.
Worse, copyright red tape means artists whose work is derivative of other copyrighted works (which is basically everybody) must constantly fear consequences for the perfectly normal cultural borrowing that occurs. If I hear someone whistling and unconsciously introduce their tune into a new piece of music, I may find myself sued for "stealing" from a band I've never heard of. If I want to criticise The Mouse through parody I should hire a lawyer to make sure what I'm doing is bomb proof legally or Mickey's lawyers will shut me down. More red tape.
So yes, there are reasonable people who create music and long for copyright to be universally appealed, just as there are people who create software and long for copyright to be universally appealed.
NB In many countries "copyright" and "the moral rights of the author" (notably, to be acknowledged as creator of the work) are separate, and few if any object to the latter.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 26, 2010 12:36 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
s/appealed/repealed/ apparently the sun is getting to me
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 27, 2010 22:03 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
So what did artists do BEFORE COPYRIGHT EXISTED ?
Cheers,
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 27, 2010 23:02 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
There were none.
Also, Shakespeare was a myth.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 28, 2010 7:47 UTC (Mon) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
they depended on patronage, mostly.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 28, 2010 13:31 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
sounds a lot like science now.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 29, 2010 15:17 UTC (Tue) by Hanno (guest, #41730) [Link]
I'd rather compare it to today's business of opera, ballet and most of classical music.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jun 29, 2010 16:45 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
All of which (especially classical music) are being devastated by the copyright maximalists, as well, with orchestras now being told they have to pay per-performance royalties to modern-day *printers* of works arranged in the 19th century and composed long before because they can now be considered to have the copyright in some ridiculous nebulous sense.
Copyright really will never expire as long as these people have a say in it.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jul 3, 2010 5:06 UTC (Sat) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
I don't think the 19th C music example is not as daft as it first appears. Everyone's still free to copy the original 19th century score, or copy 19th century copies of the original score. If you choose to pay the printer, then it's because the printer is providing a valuable service.
Stallman would presumably say that the wrong is not that you have to pay to get a copy of the music, but that (depending on the license the printer grants) you're forbidden from sharing the music.
As with software, it's very difficult to get the law changed, and it's hard to know what the overall effect on society a given change would have.
If you want to be free to copy or perform music or software, then the practical solution is the same as with software and books: copy a 19th century score yourself (or compose music yourself), make it freely available to others, and encourage others to do the same. If Project Gutenberg and similar projects are practical, then musical equivalents should be all the more so.
Copyright abolitionists Posted Jul 7, 2010 15:31 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Paying the printer for doing the printing, yes. But paying the printer *per-performance royalties* is plainly not in the original spirit of copyright at all: printing something out of copyright does not involve creative work (certainly not more than printing something which is not out of copyright, which would not give the printer per-performance royalties).
|
|||||||||||||