Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission cultureVilla: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culturePosted Jan 29, 2013 21:16 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture by wagerrard Parent article: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
No one has some kind of mystical right to use, borrow, copy, sell or eat what I make unless I say so. In effect, rights to the things I make come from me, not the universe. Oh, absolutely. As long as you keep the stuff you've created private, you know secret everything is fine. I've not seen anyone who says that it's Ok to trespass and borrow your unfinished future bestseller to sell it as his (or her) own creation. Trouble starts when you start to share. Copyright, licensing, and all such schemes are, from my point of view, legal scaffolding erected, in principle, to protect my rights to the things I make, and to protect the exercise by others of the rights I transfer to them in one fashion or another. Not even close. Copyright was always about publishers, never about authors. It was created to fill publisher's coffins, nothing more, nothing less. If you gave me copy (voluntarily gave!) why should you control what I do with my own copy? It's not yours anymore! An absence of rules governing behavior does not mean the behavior goes away. No, but it saves the public money: instead of spending money for the witch hunt it'll spend money for the authors. Here is recording industry example: yes, mass MP3 copying is killing recording companies, but if money go to the people who really create music instead, then... what's the problem? Why should we care what happens with obsolete and useless industry? Because it's large industy? Somehow iceman's disappeared without making electric refrigerators illegal - and once upon time it was much larger industry.
(Log in to post comments)
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 30, 2013 2:00 UTC (Wed) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] ...but if money go[es] to the people who really create [the] music instead, then... what's the problem?So, absent copyright and its enforcement, how do you ensure that "the people who really create the music" get paid for their creations, so that they keep creating?
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 30, 2013 2:32 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
> absent copyright and its enforcement, how do you ensure that "the people who really create the music" get paid for their creations, so that they keep creating?
Those are actually two separate questions.
0) How do you ensure the original creators get paid?
Arguably, question 1) is much more important than 0), as 0) is intended as an inducement toward goal 1). It's also intended as an inducement toward a goal you've not stated, which is
2) How do we ensure more people become creators?
and the ultimate question, which is the complete thrust of everything which is
A) How do we promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?
i.e. how do we encourage people to make new, easily copied works of art and discoveries, and particularly how do we encourage people to reveal the magic sauce to continue scientific and technological advancement?
Everything we've discussed is for A), which has perhaps familiar phrasing.
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 30, 2013 18:02 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] You assume that without copyright no new music will be created. But I observe that lots and lots of music predates the era of copyright (copyright was extended to cover music, too less then 100 years ago, music existed for centuries without copyright!). We can just look on how it was done before, it's not big deal. Some other creations were never created in era before copyright (movies and programs, for example), but it's not entirely clear if they need copyright or they only need the technology.
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Feb 1, 2013 2:17 UTC (Fri) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link]
The various ways it existed for 90% of the time - note that Shakespeare was a (for his time) wealthy man, even without copyright.
You can demand payment upfront before you publish, or gain a patron, or request donations, or do something else and create in your spare time, or even something else.
|
|||||||||||||