[cc-community] Benjamin Mako Hill on Creative Commons
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Aug 1 12:04:14 EDT 2005
On Monday 01 August 2005 11:31 am, Greg London wrote:
> > So, take it to 40 and reduce it each year and watch the results.
> No industry would do anything but bail under this scenario.
> The point is not that there is some "magic" term length
> that gives creators "just enough" time to make enough money
> off their work. The idea is that there is some number that
> will be enough incentive for artists of all types, in all
> different types of media.
You yourself say that the term should be long enough but no longer. How can we
determine this without experiment?
> > It may also help to have more compulsory license with statutory rates.
> This gets into bureaucracy problems. how much should the rates
> be set to. what is enough. It is effectively price regulation
> by the government, and that's never been popular.
They already exist for certain types of works. The system is in place and
functioning. Why for some works and not others? Also, since is not a free
market, but a government created and controlled one, why should they not
tinker with it to benefit the public most?
> > Private parties can purchase a copyleft statujs.
> Sure, and hostages can pool their money and offer it to
> whoever will successfully tackle the gunman.
> This is just a different variation of offering a bounty.
I am cool with offering bounties if I understand your analogy.
> Copyright offers a bounty without spending any taxpayer money.
> But assuming a fan base will form and purchase the work
> to place it in copyleft status simply changing from
> one hostage scenario to another.
Except, in my scenario, when they are done with their purchase, they end up in
a better postion than they do today. Also, it will reduce the cost of
production in the long run if things play out as I envision.
> The fan base is now the person who rises up and
> takes the individual risk, fronts the money, puts the
> work in copyleft, and has no way of recouping its money,
> time or investment. It can happen, but it is ignoring
> that the default solution to a hostage scenario is for
> all the hostages to keep their heads down. The default
> solution for the prisoner's dillema is for the prisoners
> to think only of themselves and rat out the other prisoner.
I submit that may heve been the default solution before 9/11 but that the
world (or this side of the world) has changed in fundamental ways since then.
> Someone could react differently for altruistic reasons,
> but it isn't something you can design a system on.
> > Can you suggest a link that has simple layman's explanations
> > for game theory as you keep talking about?
> As it applies to intellectual works, it is described here:
> Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
> > Please comment on this possibility:
> > A musician releases a song CC BY-NC with a set price to change
> > the license to CC SA. People who would prefer to have it
> > available as SA find a way to meet the price. (Again, this
> > would only work for completely new material.)
> Once you introduce copyright, any creator who surrenders their
> rights before the term expires is sacrificing potential income.
> say copyright terms are 40 years. Say a guy writes a song,
> its popular, and gets a following. After 10 years, the musician
> is making good money on the royalties to teh song. For him
> to sell the rights for anything less than 30 year's salary
> (adjusted to a lump sum payment) would mean he is sacrificing
> his income for altruistic reasons. Again, it could happen,
> but it isn't something you can design a system around.
If the factors you put in play were the only ones in play you would probably
be right, but for instance, as things stand today, I go out of my way looking
for copyleft works and supporting those who make them. So these days, if you
are going to have me tell you about this great new song, it will be one that
is coylefted. This can snowball.
> > do you have any ideas as to how we can move from where we are to your
> > proposed 40 year copyright terms?
> Yeah. educate people so that the propaganda of
> the music industry and the propaganda of the
> anti-copyright people are both seen for the nonsense
> they contain.
> When pro-copyright people call for longer terms
> using the argument that the work must still be worth
> something because if you extend the term, they make
> more money, that it is exposed as circular logic.
> When anti-copyright people call for an end to copyright
> saying that gift economies will solve the problem better,
> it is rightly seen as fantasy. Relying on fans rising up
> and purchasing the rights to a work is not a way to solve
> the problem. Relying on the government to subsidize any and
> all art, and making it public domain immidiately is not
> solving the problem.
> The problem is a hostage scenario. and there are only two
> basic solutions. reward one individual enough that they
> take the individual risk. Or work together.
I don't yet buy that this is the problem. Good luck with your education
efforts. Is there some way you have in mind that others can help?
> In the realm of intellectual works, working together
> by using copyleft achieves results in some areas.
> linux and wikipedia and other situations where massive
> numbers of people can make small contributions to a
> much large project. In other areas, the only solution
> is to compensate an individual fully and let them
> tak all the risk. Copyright works as a reward system
> to do that.
You state this as fact, but I hold out hopes that you are mistaken. we shall
> propaganda that "information wants to be free" is nonsense.
> information as an abstract entity IS free/public.
> But that slogan ignores the fact that anything that
> is an intellectual work, is by definition, created
> by the work of individuals. And that situation maps
> directly to the game theory situation called a
> hostage scenario.
Copyright is friction in the creative process. It is aslo a lubricant. It is
debateable whether its lubricationg benefits overcome the friction it
> propagand that "I created this work, it belongs to ME"
> is nonsense as well. Becuase it ignores the abstract
> nature of the work. And it ignores teh fact that it
> only took the creator a finite amount of work to create
> it but the creator is now demanding more and more
> compensation for their time/energy.
Well, it does belong to you as long as you keep it to yourself. Publish it and
that is a different matter.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community