From kat at mindspillage.org Mon Jul 2 18:37:02 2012 From: kat at mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400 Subject: [cc-community] Fwd: [glam] 2 videos about GLAMs, Creative Commons and Wikipedia (English) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Forwarded with Iolanda's permission, since she is not on this list--I think these are nicely done! -Kat ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Iolanda Pensa Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:11 AM Subject: [glam] 2 videos about GLAMs, Creative Commons and Wikipedia (English) To: "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]" 2 videos in English about GLAMs, Creative Commons and Wikipedia made by WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge (cc by-sa). * Share Your Knowledge WHY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPWc18LswRM * Share Your Knowledge HOW - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpYmtRmPdUc hope you enjoy. iolanda/iopensa --> How you can use the videos if you like them (versions and formats) There are already in 2 versions. one on youtube with the link to wikiafrica.org (links above) and one on Wikimedia Commons with the link glamwiki.org[1] The videos are also embedded in the share your knowledge project pages[2]. [1] On Wikimedia Commons - Share Your Knowledge video 1 WHY (with final link to glamwiki.org) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Share_Your_Knowledge_1_Why_glamwiki.ogv On Wikimedia Commons - Share Your Knowledge video 2 HOW (with final link to glamwiki.org) http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_Your_Knowledge_2_How_glamwiki.ogv [2] Share Your Knowledge project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Share_Your_Knowledge _______________________________________________ glam mailing list glam at lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam -- Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: kat at wikimedia.org, kat at mindspillage.org (G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage From tvol at creativecommons.org Wed Jul 4 16:38:26 2012 From: tvol at creativecommons.org (Timothy Vollmer) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:38:26 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] #FREEBASSEL post from Larry Lessig Message-ID: Larry's post - http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/26484646550/on-the-fight-for-liberty-july-4-2012(text reproduced below) Joi's post on the Creative Commons blog - http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/33119 Website - http://freebassel.org/ --------- On the fight for liberty: July 4, 2012 Today, in America, we celebrate the declaration of our independence from Britain. If you read the list of wrongs that led those Americans to ?dissolve the bands? which tied them to their forebears, and contrast them to what?s happening in Syria today, you can see that in tyranny too, human kind has made real progress. We distract ourselves with a million other things, but distraction doesn?t change reality: thousands have died; thousands more are being held; tyranny still lives. One of our own, Bassel Khartabil , is one of those thousands. Bassel is a free software engineer. He?s also a Creative Commons volunteer. Three and a half months ago, he was detained by Syrian thugs. We have recently learned that he is being held at the security branch of Kafer Sousa, Damascus. For most in the free software and free culture movements, the worst that ever happens is the sneer from a copyright lawyer. But in the middle east, the fight for freedom is generic: To stand for the right to create and share freely is to risk the most extreme response. Bassel is now suffering that most extreme response. There are a thousand ways you can help the people of Syria. Here is one more: On this day of independence, stand with this one free soul. There?s a site , aFacebook page, and a hashtag: #FREEBASSEL. Use and share them all. No doubt, puny stuff compared with Syrian brutality. But with the thousands who have Bassel in their prayers, let it be the beginning necessary to get the world to resolve to end this brutality. Now. -- Timothy Vollmer http://creativecommons.org/about/people/#timothyvollmer phone = +016086982403 | skype = timothyvollmer | tw = @tvol -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120704/a5579b62/attachment.html From Matt.McGregor at royalsociety.org.nz Sun Jul 8 22:46:07 2012 From: Matt.McGregor at royalsociety.org.nz (Matt McGregor) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:46:07 +1200 Subject: [cc-community] New website for Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand Message-ID: <60AD28B0581F38418917B12112D76A810EFEDD5D93@mail.rsnz.local> Hi all, Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand are very excited to announce our new Wordpress-powered website! http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/ Have a look, make yourself at home, leave a comment. Let us know what you think! Best wishes, Matt McGregor Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Royal Society of New Zealand Twitter: @cc_aotearoa DDI: +64 4 4705779 | MOB: 4 Halswell Street, Thorndon, PO Box 598, Wellington 6140, New Zealand www.royalsociety.org.nz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120709/8b0f307e/attachment.html From shlomif at shlomifish.org Mon Jul 9 05:19:19 2012 From: shlomif at shlomifish.org (Shlomi Fish) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:19:19 +0300 Subject: [cc-community] New website for Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand In-Reply-To: <60AD28B0581F38418917B12112D76A810EFEDD5D93@mail.rsnz.local> References: <60AD28B0581F38418917B12112D76A810EFEDD5D93@mail.rsnz.local> Message-ID: <20120709121919.67fc85f4@lap.shlomifish.org> Hi Matt, On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:46:07 +1200 Matt McGregor wrote: > Hi all, > Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand are very excited to announce our new Wordpress-powered website! Congratulations and thanks. Well, it took me some time to figure out what "Aotearoa" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aotearoa Apparently, it's the Maori name for New Zealand. > http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/ > Have a look, make yourself at home, leave a comment. Do comments have previews? That's one of my WordPress? pet peeves. Regards, Shlomi Fish > Let us know what you think! > Best wishes, > Matt McGregor > Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Royal Society of New Zealand > Twitter: @cc_aotearoa > DDI: +64 4 4705779 | MOB: > 4 Halswell Street, Thorndon, PO Box 598, Wellington 6140, New Zealand > www.royalsociety.org.nz > > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/ways_to_do_it.html We agree. But do we agree to agree? Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . From danny.piccirillo at member.fsf.org Fri Jul 13 19:17:15 2012 From: danny.piccirillo at member.fsf.org (Danny Piccirillo) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:17:15 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] Fwd: [Womeninfreesoftware] Two job openings on the FSF campaigns team In-Reply-To: <87bok11gvz.fsf@myles.home.wjsullivan.net> References: <87bok11gvz.fsf@myles.home.wjsullivan.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Sullivan Date: Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:57 PM Subject: [Womeninfreesoftware] Two job openings on the FSF campaigns team To: womeninfreesoftware at gnu.org Please apply and/or spread the word to your friends who might be interested. :) # Two job openings on the FSF campaigns team The Free Software Foundation (FSF), a Boston-based 501(c)(3) charity with a worldwide mission to protect freedoms critical to the computer-using public, seeks *two* motivated and organized tech-friendly Boston-based individuals to be its full-time campaigns managers. Together, these positions form a team working closely with the executive director and members of the FSF's board of directors to plan, carry out, evaluate, and improve FSF's advocacy and education campaigns. The team will start by taking up responsibility for our existing campaigns in support of the GNU Project, free software adoption, free media formats, and freedom on the network; and against DRM, software patents, and proprietary software. Such responsibility includes: * planning both online and physical actions to achieve our campaign goals, * setting specific goals for each action and then measuring our success in achieving them, * doing the writing and messaging work needed to effectively explain our campaigns and motivate people to support them, * overseeing or doing the graphic design work to make our campaigns and their Web sites attractive, * working with our systems administrators on the technology choices and deployments -- especially of web publication systems like Drupal and Plone -- for our campaign sites, and * being an approachable, humble, and friendly representative of the FSF to our worldwide community of existing supporters and the broader public, both in person and online. The campaigns team is also empowered and encouraged to develop new campaigns to advance the FSF's charitable mission. If you can look at and come up with proposals to improve both the quality and appearance of the work described there, along with ways to measure the success of your proposals if implemented, you should apply. In your cover letter, please tell us a story of a time you motivated and organized others to take action on an issue important to you. With our small staff of twelve, each person makes a clear contribution. We work hard, but offer a humane and fun work environment. The FSF is a mature but growing organization that provides great potential for advancement; existing staff get the first chance at any new job openings. ## Benefits and salary The job must be worked on-site at FSF's downtown Boston offices. An on-site interview will be required with the executive director. This job is a union position. The salary is fixed at $56,920/year and is non-negotiable. Other benefits include: * full family health coverage through Blue Cross/Blue Shield's HMO Blue program, * subsidized dental plan, * four weeks of paid vacation annually, * seventeen paid holidays annually, * public transit commuting cost reimbursement, * 403(b) program through TIAA-CREF, and * yearly cost-of-living pay increases. ## Application instructions Resumes and cover letters must be submitted via email to . The email must contain the subject line, "Campaigns Manager." Resumes and cover letters should be attached in a free format. Email submissions that do not follow these instructions will be ignored. **Applications must be received by Monday, July 23rd, 2012.** The FSF is an equal opportunity employer and will not discriminate against any employee or application for employment on the basis of race, color, marital status, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, handicap, or any other legally protected status recognized by federal, state or local law. ## About the Free Software Foundation The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software -- particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants -- and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software, and its Web sites, located at fsf.org and gnu.org, are an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support the FSF's work can be made at . Its headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://identi.ca/johnsu01 | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at . _______________________________________________ womeninfreesoftware mailing list womeninfreesoftware at gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/womeninfreesoftware -- ? ? ? .danny This email is: [ ] bloggable [ ] shareable with consent [ ] lethal if repeated or forwarded [?#] The Silent Number - http://thesilentnumber.me/ ?Blog: http://identi.ca/dpic voice: +1.617.340.3661 -------------------------------------------- Q: Why is this email five sentences or less? A: http://five.sentenc.es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120713/01653aa3/attachment.html From jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com Fri Jul 20 14:32:32 2012 From: jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com (Mike Dupont) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:32:32 +0000 Subject: [cc-community] Looking for speakers for sfk12, sept 8 in prishtina kosovo Message-ID: Hi there, we are looking for speakers for our fourth edition of our software freedom kosovo conference, we are interested in getting speakers from cc, and we have done some basic porting of the cc license to albanian. here is our cfp, http://www.flossk.org/en/blog/software-freedom-kosova-2012 thanks, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120720/e338d938/attachment.html From jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com Tue Jul 24 00:42:00 2012 From: jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com (Mike Dupont) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 04:42:00 +0000 Subject: [cc-community] Interesting petition for government to share its software under a creative commons license Message-ID: Hi there, you might find this interesting! https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maximize-public-benefit-federal-technology-sharing-government-developed-software-under-open-source/6n5ZBBwf mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 From ml at gondwanaland.com Tue Jul 24 00:54:07 2012 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:54:07 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] Interesting petition for government to share its software under a creative commons license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Mike Dupont wrote: > Hi there, > you might find this interesting! > https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maximize-public-benefit-federal-technology-sharing-government-developed-software-under-open-source/6n5ZBBwf "an open source license" Hopefully that means one of http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ though the petition isn't well specified and should at least acknowledge status of US federal employee works, etc; see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/12181319800/should-software-created-federal-govt-be-open-source-licensed-public-domain.shtml Doesn't say CC in any case and no reason for it to http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F I signed anyway earlier, but it'd be good to see a more robust version (if only for public education; I think these petitions are just to highlight and elicit consideration and response from officials if they reach a threshold of signatures). I did find interesting :) Mike From jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com Tue Jul 24 02:11:05 2012 From: jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com (Mike Dupont) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:11:05 +0000 Subject: [cc-community] Interesting petition for government to share its software under a creative commons license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I also find this petition naive, but worth sharing. there seems to be no way to comment on the page. this is going to be a long process. I found about this via the https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/hardhats/xbV-cy-kkwk hardhats list, they are using FOI requests to get copies of public domain code from the VA vista program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA). Obviously this is going to be a long process with lots of issues. mike On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Mike Dupont > wrote: >> Hi there, >> you might find this interesting! >> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maximize-public-benefit-federal-technology-sharing-government-developed-software-under-open-source/6n5ZBBwf > > "an open source license" > > Hopefully that means one of http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ though > the petition isn't well specified and should at least acknowledge > status of US federal employee works, etc; see > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/12181319800/should-software-created-federal-govt-be-open-source-licensed-public-domain.shtml > > Doesn't say CC in any case and no reason for it to > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F > > I signed anyway earlier, but it'd be good to see a more robust version > (if only for public education; I think these petitions are just to > highlight and elicit consideration and response from officials if they > reach a threshold of signatures). > > I did find interesting :) > Mike > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 From simone.aliprandi at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 15:25:39 2012 From: simone.aliprandi at gmail.com (Simone Aliprandi) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:25:39 +0200 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" Message-ID: Here is my new article "Measuring the so called "piracy": a commented review of the most important empirical studies" http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/07/measuring-so-called-piracy-commented.html published in SCIRES-IT (a smart openaccess review, licensed with CC). Comments and sharing are welcome. Bye, Simone -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 24 16:54:19 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:54:19 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 24/07/2012 20:25, Simone Aliprandi wrote: > Here is my new article > "Measuring the so called "piracy": a commented review of the most > important empirical studies" > http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/07/measuring-so-called-piracy-commented.html > published in SCIRES-IT (a smart openaccess review, licensed with CC). > Comments and sharing are welcome. > Bye, Simone > Two things 1) Small independent music labels report that whereas a band might sell a few 1000 CDs nowadays they might sell just a few 100; that there has been a 90% reduction in sales. The claims that pirates purchase more music is false. 2) The torrent and cyberlocker sites are making money on advertising and premium download speeds none of which comes back to the artists who's works are pirated: The claims that pirated works are not lost revenues is false, the artists are being stiffed by those running the torrent and cyberlocking site. From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Tue Jul 24 17:47:02 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:47:02 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> > Two things 1) Small independent music labels report that whereas a band > might sell a few 1000 CDs nowadays they might sell just a few 100; that > there has been a 90% reduction in sales. The claims that pirates > purchase more music is false. 2) The torrent and cyberlocker sites are > making money on advertising and premium download speeds none of which > comes back to the artists who's works are pirated: The claims that > pirated works are not lost revenues is false, the artists are being > stiffed by those running the torrent and cyberlocking site. CD sales are crashing globally because nobody buys funny bits of plastic any more. Phones don't have CD drives, teenagers don't take a laptop with them to play music. The "music" industry uses CD sales to claim the world is ending and cites digital sales figures when quoting numbers versus piracy law changes. Can't think why 8) For the rest you seem to have stated "claim, assertion" and missed out evidence, method, theory and analysis. The people who have done the work reach very different conclusions as do a lot of the artists They'll tell you that - small good bands are now bypassing the small record labels and getting 70% returns not piddly little royalties. There's a reason big bands who've been able to get out of contracts are also now all their own labels too. - that bad music is dying just like crap photography did and crap clipart did, and crap software is - killed by a digital plenty of truely free stuff and bands and events putting things up for free to sell new albums, gigs or other events. Every naff band on the planet is putting up free mp3 files. - "piracy is the new radio" The actual data is pretty well understood. Input spend on music isn't changing. Listening habits are - youtube licensing fees, spotify and the like are replacing radio fees, Musicians going independant are cutting out the middlemen and getting more of the money that is there to grab. It was tape, then it was CD-R then it was napster and so it goes on - none of it has actually changed. The more interesting long term question will be what creative commons and a vast pool of truely free music (ie stuff the artists explicitly want to be that way at least for NC use) will do the industry. A lot of people have got a pretty good idea and the industry doesn't like that. It's busy fighting to make truely free music performances have to pay huge fees to "rights agencies" like GEMA to give to their big industry members rather than the artists. There is a reason the industry is trying to shut down and block things that are used by successful new artists to avoid needing the industry - stuff like the promo bay. Indeed in the UK a promo bay artist was in the charts at the point the so called "music" industry got a farcical pointless block on the site! Ask artists like Dan Bull, H?rstreich, Machin? Supremacy and other modern musicians what they think. (and Machin? have for example put the entire Assembly 2011 gig on the pirate bay in high quality video). Only you may not be able to get to it because big music can't have you seeing things like that. The economics though is very simple - Total spend on music in Western countries is basically fixed (and falling with the economic depression across Europe) - In a saturated market you achieve improvements by increased efficiency - In the case of music that means going around the legacy industry The rest is just a giant PR game. Economics generally wins however hard you fight it. Alan From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 24 18:09:56 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:09:56 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 24/07/2012 22:47, Alan Cox wrote: >> Two things 1) Small independent music labels report that whereas a band >> might sell a few 1000 CDs nowadays they might sell just a few 100; that >> there has been a 90% reduction in sales. The claims that pirates >> purchase more music is false. 2) The torrent and cyberlocker sites are >> making money on advertising and premium download speeds none of which >> comes back to the artists who's works are pirated: The claims that >> pirated works are not lost revenues is false, the artists are being >> stiffed by those running the torrent and cyberlocking site. > > - small good bands are now bypassing the small record labels and getting > 70% returns not piddly little royalties. There's a reason big bands > who've been able to get out of contracts are also now all their own > labels too. > Then you will be able to put up the names of 12 new bands in the last 12 years that are making a living from free and tip jars, and whilst you are getting that list together how about a couple song writers, not performers, that are doing the same. From director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh Wed Jul 25 05:46:01 2012 From: director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh (Dorothy K. Gordon) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:46:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <10693853.6911343209561147.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> Alan, Are you OK with me reposting this analysis all over the place? Thanks Dorothy K. Gordon Director-General Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT Mobile: 233 265005712 Direct Line: 233 302 683579 Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Cox" To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, 24 July, 2012 9:47:02 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia Subject: Re: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" > Two things 1) Small independent music labels report that whereas a band > might sell a few 1000 CDs nowadays they might sell just a few 100; that > there has been a 90% reduction in sales. The claims that pirates > purchase more music is false. 2) The torrent and cyberlocker sites are > making money on advertising and premium download speeds none of which > comes back to the artists who's works are pirated: The claims that > pirated works are not lost revenues is false, the artists are being > stiffed by those running the torrent and cyberlocking site. CD sales are crashing globally because nobody buys funny bits of plastic any more. Phones don't have CD drives, teenagers don't take a laptop with them to play music. The "music" industry uses CD sales to claim the world is ending and cites digital sales figures when quoting numbers versus piracy law changes. Can't think why 8) For the rest you seem to have stated "claim, assertion" and missed out evidence, method, theory and analysis. The people who have done the work reach very different conclusions as do a lot of the artists They'll tell you that - small good bands are now bypassing the small record labels and getting 70% returns not piddly little royalties. There's a reason big bands who've been able to get out of contracts are also now all their own labels too. - that bad music is dying just like crap photography did and crap clipart did, and crap software is - killed by a digital plenty of truely free stuff and bands and events putting things up for free to sell new albums, gigs or other events. Every naff band on the planet is putting up free mp3 files. - "piracy is the new radio" The actual data is pretty well understood. Input spend on music isn't changing. Listening habits are - youtube licensing fees, spotify and the like are replacing radio fees, Musicians going independant are cutting out the middlemen and getting more of the money that is there to grab. It was tape, then it was CD-R then it was napster and so it goes on - none of it has actually changed. The more interesting long term question will be what creative commons and a vast pool of truely free music (ie stuff the artists explicitly want to be that way at least for NC use) will do the industry. A lot of people have got a pretty good idea and the industry doesn't like that. It's busy fighting to make truely free music performances have to pay huge fees to "rights agencies" like GEMA to give to their big industry members rather than the artists. There is a reason the industry is trying to shut down and block things that are used by successful new artists to avoid needing the industry - stuff like the promo bay. Indeed in the UK a promo bay artist was in the charts at the point the so called "music" industry got a farcical pointless block on the site! Ask artists like Dan Bull, H?rstreich, Machin? Supremacy and other modern musicians what they think. (and Machin? have for example put the entire Assembly 2011 gig on the pirate bay in high quality video). Only you may not be able to get to it because big music can't have you seeing things like that. The economics though is very simple - Total spend on music in Western countries is basically fixed (and falling with the economic depression across Europe) - In a saturated market you achieve improvements by increased efficiency - In the case of music that means going around the legacy industry The rest is just a giant PR game. Economics generally wins however hard you fight it. Alan _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed Jul 25 07:27:51 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:27:51 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> > > - small good bands are now bypassing the small record labels and getting > > 70% returns not piddly little royalties. There's a reason big bands > > who've been able to get out of contracts are also now all their own > > labels too. > > > > > Then you will be able to put up the names of 12 new bands in the last 12 > years that are making a living from free and tip jars, and whilst you > are getting that list together how about a couple song writers, not > performers, that are doing the same. You appear confused. None of this is about tip jars If you bypass the record labels you go to people like itunes. When a song is bought from itunes for 99cents (or equivalent) that is divided between Apple and the music producer. If the musician is via a big label then that pays all those blokes in suits, lawyers, PR men etc. For an artist doing near directly (eg via tunecore) then it starts to look like this $0.99 Payment from consumer per track $0.65 Payment to artists Artists additional costs $20/album/year You sell a mere 1000 copies a year and you get $630/year. Shift only 1000 copies through the mainstream and you'll get a bill not a payment. On the mainstream side the numbers looked like this a few years ago: http://www.rapcoalition.org/label_exec_$$_breakdown.htm http://www.taxi.com/music-business-faq/music-copyright-information/royalties.html (the second one also gives some idea of the kind of draconian conditions on things like playing with other artists that this sort of deal includes). No restrictions when you go direct. I've not ventured a comparison because you'd have to decide - how to manage tracks/albums as a divide - what the volume difference would be (clearly part of the cost of the big music industry is PR generation so you might expect to sell more - although piracy of minor artists is changing this and much cheaper than PR people providing your content is any good). Piracy can help sell good content but only PR people can sell manure. Many of the CC artists are also quite firmly CC-NC. That causes problems because the UK rights bodies try and argue that means you are not entitled to royalties (even though they still collect them). Thankfully the EU has some plans to reform the collecting agencies and the sooner the better. None of this is even new. The Greatful Dead were the world's most successful band financially. They encouraged their fans to share stuff, they made sure gigs got put up on places like archive.org. There are bands like the Hamsters who basically made their money live (and that have been going on so long they've finally retired from the scene) etc. Live however is always different. Copyright is an artificial scarcity for music, which is why CC can have such a huge impact upon it. Live music is not an artificial scarcity. There is exactly one instance of Machin? the band and they cannot perform live in two places at once. Alan From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed Jul 25 07:47:28 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:47:28 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <10693853.6911343209561147.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> References: <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <10693853.6911343209561147.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> Message-ID: <20120725124728.757263bc@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:46:01 +0000 (GMT) "Dorothy K. Gordon" wrote: > Alan, Are you OK with me reposting this analysis all over the place? Thanks I think it depends where. If you do though could you add - Neil Young to the quote "Piracy is the new radio". I missed that off the original For an informed debate it is better to look at the actual academic work and talk to the artists. Thst gives you a rather more rigorous way to seek answers. Feel free to repost it - but it's my opinion, not rigorous academic analysis. More interesting is probably to look at some of the actual research "Piracy and the Legitimate Demand for Recorded Music" Hui/Png, 2002 Which concluded that piracy has some effect on CD sales but that it was < 6.6% of revenue. "The Effect of Internet Piracy on CD Sales: Cross-Section Evidence", Peitz/Waelbroeck Which concluded piracy had an impact on 2001 CD sales drops, but not 2002 Looking entirely at Students the NBER research found that US college undergrads were spendng slightly less on hit albums. "Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office Sales" - Danaher/Waldfogel, 2012. (which is interesting as it shows piracy losses linked to delaying release in other countries, but *not* to post release piracy) There are also studies of the thinking and way people see it "The Effects of Piracy Upon The Music Industry: a case study of bootlegging" Marshall/2010 for example. This one actually concluded there may even be a positive impact on piracy And it goes on - there's no shortage of research. Some of it is really hard to quantify - there are very very weird economic effects involved. For example you get rising market prices not because of the cost of piracy but because piracy creates market segmentation. Instead of being forced to keep prices low so students buy you can up prices and accept they won't but more than make up the profit on the paying consumers. That gets reported as lower sales, more piracy but isn't neccessarily bad for the industry ! Piracy as economics also sidesteps a moral question: In the creative commons world authors choose to give permission for their works to be reused publically in certain ways and with some (often minimal) restrictions such as attribution. Piracy may have no huge commercial harm, but it's still doing things without the authors permission. I get pretty annoyed when people rip off GPL Linux code, so I imagine some of the proprietary music authors feel similarly, although many certainly do not. Alan From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Wed Jul 25 17:15:33 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:15:33 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 25/07/2012 12:27, Alan Cox wrote: >>> - small good bands are now bypassing the small record labels and getting >>> 70% returns not piddly little royalties. There's a reason big bands >>> who've been able to get out of contracts are also now all their own >>> labels too. >>> >> >> >> Then you will be able to put up the names of 12 new bands in the last 12 >> years that are making a living from free and tip jars, and whilst you >> are getting that list together how about a couple song writers, not >> performers, that are doing the same. > > You appear confused. None of this is about tip jars > > If you bypass the record labels you go to people like itunes. When a > song is bought from itunes for 99cents (or equivalent) that is divided > between Apple and the music producer. > > If the musician is via a big label then that pays all those blokes in > suits, lawyers, PR men etc. > > For an artist doing near directly (eg via tunecore) then it starts to > look like this > > $0.99 Payment from consumer per track > $0.65 Payment to artists > > Artists additional costs > $20/album/year > > You sell a mere 1000 copies a year and you get $630/year. Shift only 1000 > copies through the mainstream and you'll get a bill not a payment. > Most bands don't shift a mere 1000 copies of an album a year. They may have pre-piracy, they don't now. Equivalent sales are down 90%. I said that in a prior post but you went all nerdy with kids don't buy Cds, well they don't vinyl much nowadyas either but we all know what you mean by Albums. Now you might think that with all this access to an audience that sales might well be up, or at least remained steady. Instead they are 90% down, yet music consumption is up. Go figure how that is. > On the mainstream side the numbers looked like this a few years ago: > http://www.rapcoalition.org/label_exec_$$_breakdown.htm > > http://www.taxi.com/music-business-faq/music-copyright-information/royalties.html > > (the second one also gives some idea of the kind of draconian conditions > on things like playing with other artists that this sort of deal > includes). No restrictions when you go direct. > Your link talks about new acts selling less than 150,000 copies of a release. Name 10 acts in the last 12 years that have been outside the record labels that have sold anything approaching 150,000 copies of a release? > I've not ventured a comparison because you'd have to decide > - how to manage tracks/albums as a divide > - what the volume difference would be (clearly part of the cost of the > big music industry is PR generation so you might expect to sell more - > although piracy of minor artists is changing this and much cheaper than > PR people providing your content is any good). Piracy can help sell good > content but only PR people can sell manure. > Name 10 new acts in the last 12 years that have sold anything approaching 150,000 copies of a release, outside of record company promotion. > > None of this is even new. The Greatful Dead were the world's most > successful band financially. They encouraged their fans to share stuff, > they made sure gigs got put up on places like archive.org. > Smoking doesn't harm your health, my granddad smoked 80 fags a day and lived until he was 100 etc, etc. We can all come up with a couple examples of a something that bucks the trend - list 3 Grateful Dead type bands. From rob at robmyers.org Wed Jul 25 17:29:20 2012 From: rob at robmyers.org (Rob Myers) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:29:20 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> On 07/25/2012 10:15 PM, P-M wrote: > > Most bands don't shift a mere 1000 copies of an album a year. Most bands dream of shifting that many. And even most bands with recording contracts make less than 1000$US a year in royalties from them. Extremely successful bands *under any model* are outliers. - Rob. From ml at gondwanaland.com Wed Jul 25 17:42:29 2012 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:42:29 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM, P-M wrote: > Now you might think that with all this access to an audience that sales > might well be up, or at least remained steady. Instead they are 90% > down, yet music consumption is up. Go figure how that is. Yay consumer surplus! Apparently people still enjoy making music, as there's a "hyper-abundance" of it. > Smoking doesn't harm your health, my granddad smoked 80 fags a day and > lived until he was 100 etc, etc. We can all come up with a couple > examples of a something that bucks the trend - list 3 Grateful Dead type > bands. 5376 listed at http://archive.org/audio/etree-band-showall.php But considering that YouTube is far less obscure, and the huge number of full concerts that don't get taken down from there, I suspect the actual number of bands pursuing a "Grateful Dead" "strategy" is much larger. Mike From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Wed Jul 25 17:43:36 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:43:36 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> Message-ID: <50106888.2080506@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 25/07/2012 22:29, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/25/2012 10:15 PM, P-M wrote: >> >> Most bands don't shift a mere 1000 copies of an album a year. > > Most bands dream of shifting that many. And even most bands with > recording contracts make less than 1000$US a year in royalties from them. > > Extremely successful bands *under any model* are outliers. > Bingo as they say. Most of the money coming into the music industry isn't from album sales, but from placements in films, and TV, and its mainly acts like Madonna, and others at the top of the tree that are doing that. From ml at gondwanaland.com Wed Jul 25 18:05:54 2012 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:05:54 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50106888.2080506@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> <50106888.2080506@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM, P-M wrote: > Most of the money coming into the music industry isn't from album sales, > but from placements in films, and TV, and its mainly acts like Madonna, > and others at the top of the tree that are doing that. AFAICT not bigger than recording sales. There's also of course live music and my favorite, sales of instruments and other equipment. Good numbers are hard to come by, but each (recording, licensing, live, equipment) is on the order of 10-100 billion USD worldwide annually. Now given that recording and licensing sales (and probably to a lesser extent, live) are dominated by the "top of the tree", it'd be great to decrease wealth and income inequality both within the entertainment biz and within and across societies overall by expanding the public domain by law. Mike From geniice at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 18:31:26 2012 From: geniice at gmail.com (geni) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:31:26 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: On 25 July 2012 12:27, Alan Cox wrote: >> > - small good bands are now bypassing the small record labels and getting >> > 70% returns not piddly little royalties. There's a reason big bands >> > who've been able to get out of contracts are also now all their own >> > labels too. >> > >> >> >> Then you will be able to put up the names of 12 new bands in the last 12 >> years that are making a living from free and tip jars, and whilst you >> are getting that list together how about a couple song writers, not >> performers, that are doing the same. > > You appear confused. None of this is about tip jars > > If you bypass the record labels you go to people like itunes. When a > song is bought from itunes for 99cents (or equivalent) that is divided > between Apple and the music producer. > > If the musician is via a big label then that pays all those blokes in > suits, lawyers, PR men etc. Which would only be relevant if they weren't doing anything. The reality is that if you start to move a reasonable amount of money around you are going to have to have some involvement with lawyers. Music selling companies already have the ones with the right skill-set. PR men are pretty much critical in the music industry. The reality is that the number of bands who can play well enough and write a few reasonable songs and could perhaps do more if given the chance vastly outnumber the number of people who can sell a reasonable amount of such a bands music. The other thing is that although its not their intention music selling companies do a fair bit of cross subsidy in the form of payments and support to artists who don't work out. > For an artist doing near directly (eg via tunecore) then it starts to > look like this > > $0.99 Payment from consumer per track > $0.65 Payment to artists Actually it tends to look more like no sales at all except perhaps to the artist's parents. > None of this is even new. The Greatful Dead were the world's most > successful band financially. Citation needed. And didn't they end up signing up with Arista Records? -- geni From lucas.gonze at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 19:18:15 2012 From: lucas.gonze at gmail.com (Lucas Gonze) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:18:15 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> <50106888.2080506@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > Now given that recording and licensing sales (and probably to a lesser > extent, live) are dominated by the "top of the tree", it'd be great to > decrease wealth and income inequality both within the entertainment > biz and within and across societies overall by expanding the public > domain by law. In genres with a thriving public domain I suspect more of the revenues are kept by musicians further down the tree. If one musician does a book on how to play current hits almost all of the revenue goes to the owners of the compositions, who are by definition associated with the top of the tree. Whereas a musician who does a book on how to play public domain music has no composers to pay. -Lucas Gonze From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed Jul 25 19:46:10 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:46:10 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20120726004610.3028bc9e@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> > Equivalent sales are down 90%. I said that in a prior post but you went > all nerdy with kids don't buy Cds, well they don't vinyl much nowadyas > either but we all know what you mean by Albums. I don't know where you get your numbers from but the music industry doesn't agree with you and its in their interest to lie in that direction if anything. Nielsen/Billboard are effectively the definitive answer on sales. Overall music sales in the US are *UP* 4% Overall album sales are down 0.6% (and down 0.6% is btw better than overall consumer trends due to the US recession) So I don't know where your 90% number comes from but the industries own key analyst says otherwise. http://www.scoopmarketing.com/2012/07/the-nielsen-company-billboard-2012-mid-year-u-s-music-industry-report/ You are arguing from a completely bogus base point. Also you don't need to sell 150,000 copies if you dump the big industry: A band selling 150,000 tracks independantly via itunes would garner just under $100,000 real, in pocket, expenses covered money. 150,000 albums would presumably see them at nearer a million dollars. Alan From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed Jul 25 19:49:54 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:49:54 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120726004954.3abba3bd@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> O> > If the musician is via a big label then that pays all those blokes in > > suits, lawyers, PR men etc. > > Which would only be relevant if they weren't doing anything. The > reality is that if you start to move a reasonable amount of money > around you are going to have to have some involvement with lawyers. > Music selling companies already have the ones with the right > skill-set. PR men are pretty much critical in the music industry. They were critical if you wanted to ship a 500,000 copies of something that needs pushing. Plus all the other stuff (see New York State Attorney prosection of Sony, Warner and Universal in 2005-06) that the industry was apparently up to. The industry used to have a really important r?le because you couldn't afford to - do your own studio work (although bands were soon getting together and creating their own labels to address this - eg Woodworm) - manufacture and ship records all over the country - let people know it's out there Nowdays anyone can put a reasonable studio together. The most expensive bit in many cases is some decent microphones. Manufacture/ship is dying and will soon be dead. And As I quoted before "Piracy is the new radio" - no payola needed. It's fans on facebook, youtube, spotify, twitter that drive sales now. That also btw is giving bits of industry other headaches. You use to be able to hype a crap product from a good name to reasonable sales. Now its dies on the first day. Cinema in particular people tweet from the first showing and if its all negative - game over, no PR hyping will save it. > The other thing is that although its not their intention music selling > companies do a fair bit of cross subsidy in the form of payments and > support to artists who don't work out. Their business model requires they take gambles and big hits. It's basically vulture capitalism but with artists not .com businesses. > > For an artist doing near directly (eg via tunecore) then it starts to > > look like this > > > > $0.99 Payment from consumer per track > > $0.65 Payment to artists > > Actually it tends to look more like no sales at all except perhaps to > the artist's parents. Which is *still* better than they'd earn for under 200,000 copies on a big name music contract.. and without signing away all sorts of their rights and freedoms. There are lots of bands shipping small volumes successfully. The long tail stretches a long way before you get to "mum and dad" > > None of this is even new. The Greatful Dead were the world's most > > successful band financially. > > Citation needed. And didn't they end up signing up with Arista Records? I'll go dig it out when I get a moment. I'm told U2 have now beaten them though. The Dead maintained control of all their own rights. Hal Kant did the administration and was paid by and acted for the band not the industry. See once you are earning enough money to need a lot of lawyer time in that business you can employ one. The Dead were smart about that. The rights control is still the case even though they've licensed Rhino to develop some stuff post the end of the band itself. That control and also being smart people meant they could leverage their community encouraging free trading of live recordings and the like for publicity purposes and as a record of stuff that would never otherwise be saved. Basically they were doing CC-NC type stuff before CC even existed. In the UK we now have completely independant bands doing things like hiring the Albert Hall, emailing their fans to reach their audidence and selling out of tickets. Alan From osm at inbox.org Wed Jul 25 19:48:52 2012 From: osm at inbox.org (Anthony) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120726004610.3028bc9e@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120726004610.3028bc9e@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > A band selling 150,000 tracks independantly via itunes would garner just > under $100,000 real, in pocket, expenses covered money. Split 4 ways? That's not even enough to pay for a year of living expenses. And that's if the album can be produced for only $50K. And doesn't include any marketing (but, that's what the piracy is for, right?). From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed Jul 25 19:55:34 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:55:34 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> Message-ID: <20120726005534.296ed17f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:29:20 +0100 Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/25/2012 10:15 PM, P-M wrote: > > > > Most bands don't shift a mere 1000 copies of an album a year. > > Most bands dream of shifting that many. And even most bands with > recording contracts make less than 1000$US a year in royalties from them. > > Extremely successful bands *under any model* are outliers. This is true of most creative industries. Really successful photographers are outliners, actors, directors, authors, architects, .. all the same. Things like pure CC licensing provide paths for the rest of them, either with CC-NC type stuff as promo work to make money elsewhere, or as pure CC probably for the fun of it and to share and do cool stuff. Paths that simply didn't exist in the past and will have significant impact on anyway who isn't really special and is trying to make lots of money on it. Alan From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Wed Jul 25 20:16:15 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:16:15 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120726004610.3028bc9e@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120726011615.144c851f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:48:52 -0400 Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > > A band selling 150,000 tracks independantly via itunes would garner just > > under $100,000 real, in pocket, expenses covered money. > > Split 4 ways? That's not even enough to pay for a year of living > expenses. And that's if the album can be produced for only $50K. And > doesn't include any marketing (but, that's what the piracy is for, > right?). The number of bands who are full time employed with their music is close to nil. And 150,000 tracks via the music industry would leave you owning them a large sum and unable to go work in music for anyone else or often even perform live in the local pub. People have odd ideas about music as a trade and how much money it makes. Yet they don't make the same assumptions and comments about say part time photographers. Alan From lucas.gonze at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 21:23:50 2012 From: lucas.gonze at gmail.com (Lucas Gonze) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:23:50 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120726011615.144c851f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120726004610.3028bc9e@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20120726011615.144c851f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > The number of bands who are full time employed with their music is close > to nil. > > People have odd ideas about music as a trade and how much money it makes. > Yet they don't make the same assumptions and comments about say part time > photographers. These things are true, and it's good to hear them said. But there is a reasonable case for music as a business project. For example a musician might realistically spend $500 on a microphone and thereby increase musical income by $600. Money is not at all moot in music making, even though enough money to make a living is a myth. A working musician needs to know how to use copyright skillfully, so that he can take a permissive approach when it will earn the most, or take a restrictive approach when there is a practical reason to expect to earn more that way. In my experience musicians who think they will make money from a restricting are usually but not always dreamers. There is profitable work composing for video games, for example, which is work for hire - the composer owes it to the customer to guard the rights, so that he can live up to his contract. From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Thu Jul 26 03:10:20 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:10:20 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <5010ED5C.60604@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 25/07/2012 22:42, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM, P-M wrote: >> Now you might think that with all this access to an audience that sales >> might well be up, or at least remained steady. Instead they are 90% >> down, yet music consumption is up. Go figure how that is. > > Yay consumer surplus! Apparently people still enjoy making music, as > there's a "hyper-abundance" of it. > >> Smoking doesn't harm your health, my granddad smoked 80 fags a day and >> lived until he was 100 etc, etc. We can all come up with a couple >> examples of a something that bucks the trend - list 3 Grateful Dead type >> bands. > > 5376 listed at http://archive.org/audio/etree-band-showall.php > An impressive list of linkls there Mike, but a huge number of them are dead, or aren't notable enough for wikipedia despite its low bar, and when I find an act with a recording history, guess what? The records they are most notable for where produced by the studios like Sony, or Time Warner. From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Thu Jul 26 03:10:38 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:10:38 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120726005534.296ed17f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> <20120726005534.296ed17f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <5010ED6E.5080702@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 26/07/2012 00:55, Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:29:20 +0100 > Rob Myers wrote: > >> On 07/25/2012 10:15 PM, P-M wrote: >>> >>> Most bands don't shift a mere 1000 copies of an album a year. >> >> Most bands dream of shifting that many. And even most bands with >> recording contracts make less than 1000$US a year in royalties from them. >> >> Extremely successful bands *under any model* are outliers. > > This is true of most creative industries. Really successful photographers > are outliners, actors, directors, authors, architects, .. all the same. > > Things like pure CC licensing provide paths for the rest of them, either > with CC-NC type stuff as promo work to make money elsewhere, or as pure > CC probably for the fun of it and to share and do cool stuff. Paths that > simply didn't exist in the past and will have significant impact on > anyway who isn't really special and is trying to make lots of money on it. > Eh? Those paths always existed. Back in the 70s and 80s in the clubs people swapped songs they had written, swapped arrangements, etc. I don't recall any of the songwriters sitting in the audience of a club when band X sang song Y turning up afterwards wanting a cut in the gig fee. From hessel at tribeofnoise.com Thu Jul 26 04:56:58 2012 From: hessel at tribeofnoise.com (Hessel van Oorschot) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:56:58 +0200 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> <50106888.2080506@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: AFAICT licensing is the #1 money maker. But don't be surprised to see a big shift to the long tail (smaller opportunities for many artists) Global brands spending money on music to engage with consumers are increasing their spending on smaller but more digital content and global ad campaigns are launched with a local feel (local music, voice over etc.) to get closer to the mind of the consumer. In digital out of home media, all rights included content, so not Madonna, is the trend. Retail, Supermarket, Hotel chains etc are cutting cost without losing quality / good customer experience. Again, opportunities but not the $100K per 30sec deals some of you remember from the 90's Hessel 2012/7/26 Mike Linksvayer > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM, P-M wrote: > > Most of the money coming into the music industry isn't from album sales, > > but from placements in films, and TV, and its mainly acts like Madonna, > > and others at the top of the tree that are doing that. > > AFAICT not bigger than recording sales. There's also of course live > music and my favorite, sales of instruments and other equipment. Good > numbers are hard to come by, but each (recording, licensing, live, > equipment) is on the order of 10-100 billion USD worldwide annually. > > Now given that recording and licensing sales (and probably to a lesser > extent, live) are dominated by the "top of the tree", it'd be great to > decrease wealth and income inequality both within the entertainment > biz and within and across societies overall by expanding the public > domain by law. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community > -- Hessel van Oorschot | *Tribe of Noise * | +31 (0)6 180 830 79 | hessel at tribeofnoise.com *What's happening?* - Tribe of Noise and iStockphoto Launch Summer Games Competition | Press Release July 12, 2012 - Getty Images and Tribe of Noise partner to help talented artists with new business | Press Release, Feb 16,2012 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120726/b06eb8cb/attachment-0001.html From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Thu Jul 26 09:12:31 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:12:31 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <5010ED6E.5080702@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> <20120726005534.296ed17f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <5010ED6E.5080702@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20120726141231.362e795a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> > Eh? Those paths always existed. Back in the 70s and 80s in the clubs > people swapped songs they had written, swapped arrangements, etc. I > don't recall any of the songwriters sitting in the audience of a club > when band X sang song Y turning up afterwards wanting a cut in the gig fee. What I mean is that there was no open mass distribution system. There was no "publish to a million people" button. As such most of this material was very localised. Same with software, fan fic, lots of other stuff. The band X sings song Y problem hasn't really changed, but what has gotten a lot worse is the Band X sings song Y , heavyweights from GEMA and other similar agencies turn up demand large fees for any event which they then pay to unrelated bands Z Alan From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Thu Jul 26 13:53:51 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:53:51 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120726141231.362e795a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> <20120726005534.296ed17f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <5010ED6E.5080702@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120726141231.362e795a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <5011842F.3060406@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 26/07/2012 14:12, Alan Cox wrote: >> Eh? Those paths always existed. Back in the 70s and 80s in the clubs >> people swapped songs they had written, swapped arrangements, etc. I >> don't recall any of the songwriters sitting in the audience of a club >> when band X sang song Y turning up afterwards wanting a cut in the gig fee. > > What I mean is that there was no open mass distribution system. There was > no "publish to a million people" button. As such most of this material > was very localised. Same with software, fan fic, lots of other stuff. > And? Having a publish to a million people button sounds like a great idea, you'd think that creators would be greatly pleased, 'cept that they sell less with the publish to a million people button then they did before the button existed. Small independent labels note that if they put out an analogue version of an album they have reasonable sales, a few days after they release a digital version, and it appears on the torrent sites, sales drop off the cliff. > The band X sings song Y problem hasn't really changed, but what has > gotten a lot worse is the > > Band X sings song Y , heavyweights from GEMA and other similar > agencies turn up demand large fees for any event which they > then pay to unrelated bands Z > What I am reading from the above is that because some collection agency claims a few $ from cover acts, all musicians should just suck it up: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/breaking-news-band-embraces-new-technology-and-business-model/ From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Thu Jul 26 13:54:18 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:54:18 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120726141231.362e795a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> <20120726005534.296ed17f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <5010ED6E.5080702@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120726141231.362e795a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <5011844A.10107@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 26/07/2012 14:12, Alan Cox wrote: >> Eh? Those paths always existed. Back in the 70s and 80s in the clubs >> people swapped songs they had written, swapped arrangements, etc. I >> don't recall any of the songwriters sitting in the audience of a club >> when band X sang song Y turning up afterwards wanting a cut in the gig fee. > > What I mean is that there was no open mass distribution system. There was > no "publish to a million people" button. As such most of this material > was very localised. Same with software, fan fic, lots of other stuff. > And? Having a publish to a million people button sounds like a great idea, you'd think that creators would be greatly pleased, 'cept that they sell less with the publish to a million people button then they did before the button existed. Small independent labels note that if they put out an analogue version of an album they have reasonable sales, a few days after they release a digital version, and it appears on the torrent sites, sales drop off the cliff. > The band X sings song Y problem hasn't really changed, but what has > gotten a lot worse is the > > Band X sings song Y , heavyweights from GEMA and other similar > agencies turn up demand large fees for any event which they > then pay to unrelated bands Z > What I am reading from the above is that because some collection agency claims a few $ from cover acts, all musicians should just suck it up: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/breaking-news-band-embraces-new-technology-and-business-model/ From lucas.gonze at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 14:19:01 2012 From: lucas.gonze at gmail.com (Lucas Gonze) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:19:01 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <5011842F.3060406@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <500F0B7B.3030801@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120724224702.76c167ab@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501061F5.2070607@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50106530.5040801@robmyers.org> <20120726005534.296ed17f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <5010ED6E.5080702@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120726141231.362e795a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <5011842F.3060406@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM, P-M wrote: > Small independent labels note that if they put out an analogue version > of an album they have reasonable sales, a few days after they release a > digital version, and it appears on the torrent sites, sales drop off the > cliff. This is a purely anecdotal answer to a question that is so complex that serious researchers still haven't reached consensus. Whatever. It's not a issue for cc-community. The Pho list is a better place for grinding this axe. From am.fitzgerald at qut.edu.au Fri Jul 27 03:59:06 2012 From: am.fitzgerald at qut.edu.au (Anne Fitzgerald) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:59:06 +1000 Subject: [cc-community] Landsat 8 images to be published under CC BY 3.0 Australia licence Message-ID: <7063AB402ECC7C4FB6E0F5FD8499C51E232E4EAD43@QUTEXMBX01.qut.edu.au> Hi all I thought I would bring to your attention a blog post we wrote on the CC Australia site recently: see http://creativecommons.org.au/weblog/entry/3664 This is a really good example of the strength of the adoption of CC in Australia by the public sector. Geoscience Australia was in point of time the very first Australian government agency to formally adopt CC licences (in 2007/2008), closely followed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (in 2008). Our work on the potential for adoption of CC licences on government materials began in the context of spatial and mapping information. We began our work at the State government level (Queensland State government) but fairly quickly got the interest of federal government agencies, including Geoscience Australia (GA). We were in active contact with GA from around 2006/2007, and the person interviewed in article in The Register, Jeff Kingwell, is the individual with whom we had the most - and the most significant - contact as GA made the policy decision and then implemented CC. We are still in intermittent contact with Jeff and check back with him from time to time to see what is going on. At present, we are waiting to hear back from him, to see if he has anything to add to the report in The Register. This is a very good case study and may be worthwhile writing up at greater length; we have previously captured it in much of our material but this latest step seems to be quite significant, with ramifications far beyond Australia. regards Anne Professor Anne Fitzgerald QUT Law Faculty am.fitzgerald at qut.edu.au + 61 + 7 + 3138 7695 Skype: amfitzgerald2 ________________________________ From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Matt McGregor [Matt.McGregor at royalsociety.org.nz] Sent: Monday, 9 July 2012 12:46 PM To: 'cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org' Subject: [cc-community] New website for Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand Hi all, Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand are very excited to announce our new Wordpress-powered website! http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/ Have a look, make yourself at home, leave a comment. Let us know what you think! Best wishes, Matt McGregor Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Royal Society of New Zealand Twitter: @cc_aotearoa DDI: +64 4 4705779 | MOB: 4 Halswell Street, Thorndon, PO Box 598, Wellington 6140, New Zealand www.royalsociety.org.nz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120727/2f075dbc/attachment.html From gnot at g-loaded.eu Sat Jul 28 00:46:46 2012 From: gnot at g-loaded.eu (George Notaras) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:46:46 +0300 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> On 24/7/2012 10:25 ??, Simone Aliprandi wrote: > Here is my new article > "Measuring the so called "piracy": a commented review of the most > important empirical studies" > http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/07/measuring-so-called-piracy-commented.html > published in SCIRES-IT (a smart openaccess review, licensed with CC). > Comments and sharing are welcome. > Bye, Simone > I keep wondering why this stuff is posted on a CC list. As far as I know, the CC licenses respect intellectual property and provide creators with a flexible way to distribute their Works that is compatible with the Digital Era. The fact that a bit of data is licensed in a way that it is allowed to copy, distribute and build upon, if certain conditions are met, does _not_ mean that CC endorses piracy. Sharing is one thing. Piracy is another thing, and CC has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, piracy is piracy. It's not radio. It breaks every single rule of trade. It has always been that way, but, nowadays the problem is that the technological progress has made piracy of digital goods ridiculously easy. This fact is a problem that we have to deal with and not a reason valid enough to justify piracy. From shlomif at shlomifish.org Sat Jul 28 04:51:55 2012 From: shlomif at shlomifish.org (Shlomi Fish) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:51:55 +0300 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> Message-ID: <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> Hi, On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:46:46 +0300 George Notaras wrote: > On 24/7/2012 10:25 ??, Simone Aliprandi wrote: > > Here is my new article > > "Measuring the so called "piracy": a commented review of the most > > important empirical studies" > > http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/07/measuring-so-called-piracy-commented.html > > published in SCIRES-IT (a smart openaccess review, licensed with CC). > > Comments and sharing are welcome. > > Bye, Simone > > > > I keep wondering why this stuff is posted on a CC list. As far as I > know, the CC licenses respect intellectual property and provide creators > with a flexible way to distribute their Works that is compatible with > the Digital Era. Creative Commons licences are indeed based on Copyrights law, but as opposed to many "all-rights-reserved" licences, the CC-by/CC-by-sa/CC-by-nc/CC-by-nc-sa/CC-by-nd/CC-by-nc-nd licences, specifically allow for non-commercial redistribution of works that are licensed under them, which you and other people might call "piracy". > > The fact that a bit of data is licensed in a way that it is allowed to > copy, distribute and build upon, if certain conditions are met, does > _not_ mean that CC endorses piracy. Sharing is one thing. Piracy is > another thing, and CC has nothing to do with it. > Actually, in his http://remix.lessig.org/ book ("Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy"), Professor Lawrence Lessig specifically mentions the irrationality of the current copyright regime with respect to the non-commercial sharing of copyrighted works. And Lessig is one of initiators of Creative Commons, and I recall him giving a talk (via remote video) on the launch of the Israeli chapter of Creative Commons. I've also written about it here: http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/ Also see the links and especially: http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/images/file-sharing-is-not-piracy.jpg > Furthermore, piracy is piracy. It's not radio. It breaks every single > rule of trade. It has always been that way, but, nowadays the problem is > that the technological progress has made piracy of digital goods > ridiculously easy. This fact is a problem that we have to deal with and > not a reason valid enough to justify piracy. Which rules of trade does non-commercial file sharing break? And how do you propose to deal "with" the "problem" of non-commercial sharing of digital goods? And why do you think it is a problem? Regards, Shlomi Fish > > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Parody of "The Fountainhead" - http://shlom.in/towtf We agree. But do we agree to agree? Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . From gnot at g-loaded.eu Sat Jul 28 09:59:37 2012 From: gnot at g-loaded.eu (George Notaras) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:59:37 +0300 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> Message-ID: <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> On 28/7/2012 11:51 ??, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Hi, Hi Shlomi, > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:46:46 +0300 > George Notaras wrote: > >> On 24/7/2012 10:25 ??, Simone Aliprandi wrote: >>> Here is my new article >>> "Measuring the so called "piracy": a commented review of the most >>> important empirical studies" >>> http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/07/measuring-so-called-piracy-commented.html >>> published in SCIRES-IT (a smart openaccess review, licensed with CC). >>> Comments and sharing are welcome. >>> Bye, Simone >>> >> >> I keep wondering why this stuff is posted on a CC list. As far as I >> know, the CC licenses respect intellectual property and provide creators >> with a flexible way to distribute their Works that is compatible with >> the Digital Era. > > Creative Commons licences are indeed based on Copyrights law, but as opposed to > many "all-rights-reserved" licences, the > CC-by/CC-by-sa/CC-by-nc/CC-by-nc-sa/CC-by-nd/CC-by-nc-nd licences, specifically > allow for non-commercial redistribution of works that are licensed under them, > which you and other people might call "piracy". Although I am not an expert, please let me try to clarify a few things here. Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. CC is about respect for creators and conditional sharing for users. ``Non-commercial redistribution`` is still conditional sharing. Regardless of the fact that ``non-commercial redistribution`` might resemble ``unconditional sharing``, which piracy is, I'd suggest that the term ``piracy`` should not be used to indicate ``conditional sharing``, so that we know what we are talking about. These are two completely different things. Piracy has many ugly faces and it's nowhere near what CC is about. Moreover, unifying the two terms gives enough room to actual pirates of digital goods to create valid arguments in order to support their sick logic. >> The fact that a bit of data is licensed in a way that it is allowed to >> copy, distribute and build upon, if certain conditions are met, does >> _not_ mean that CC endorses piracy. Sharing is one thing. Piracy is >> another thing, and CC has nothing to do with it. >> > > Actually, in his http://remix.lessig.org/ book ("Remix: Making Art and Commerce > Thrive in the Hybrid Economy"), Professor Lawrence Lessig specifically mentions > the irrationality of the current copyright regime with respect to the > non-commercial sharing of copyrighted works. And Lessig is one of initiators of > Creative Commons, and I recall him giving a talk (via remote video) on the > launch of the Israeli chapter of Creative Commons. > > I've also written about it here: > > http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/ > > Also see the links and especially: > > http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/images/file-sharing-is-not-piracy.jpg > Richard Stallman is not fond of the copyright law too. Nevertheless, the GPL & LGPL are based on the this law. The source code is the intellectual property of its authors, but various permissions are granted by those licenses to the users. Same goes with the CC licenses. However, everyone is free to have an opinion about copyright and intellectual property in general, but all that matters in ``conditional sharing`` is what the license is about. Personally, all I care about is the license under which a digital good is released to the public and what permissions I get as a user/developer. >> Furthermore, piracy is piracy. It's not radio. It breaks every single >> rule of trade. It has always been that way, but, nowadays the problem is >> that the technological progress has made piracy of digital goods >> ridiculously easy. This fact is a problem that we have to deal with and >> not a reason valid enough to justify piracy. > > Which rules of trade does non-commercial file sharing break? And how do you > propose to deal "with" the "problem" of non-commercial sharing of digital > goods? And why do you think it is a problem? > Why do you keep calling ``Non commercial redistribution`` piracy? Seriously, what's the point and what are the actual benefits for the CC project by doing so? I didn't say that non-commercial file sharing of CC-licensed digital goods is a problem. This is something you came up with! ;) The _real_ problem is lack of respect. Non commercial redistribution of CC-licensed goods does not break any rules of trade. Piracy does. Let's stop mixing two fundamentally different terms. Piracy is an enemy of any kind of trade of digital goods. Also, since pirates do not respect CC licenses, piracy should also be an enemy of the Creative Commons Corporation and it's rather surprising that it is not considered to be a threat by several members of this mailing list. Gives me the impression the whole CC project is way outline. About dealing with the problem of piracy, I'd propose to actually promote ``conditional sharing`` of digital goods and a user mentality that respects license terms and, also, stop using the term ``piracy`` to describe any of the permissions a CC license grants. Now, let me ask you: How would you trade digital goods? Kind Regards, George Notaras From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Sat Jul 28 12:25:39 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:25:39 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> Message-ID: <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> > Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. Many will only share with fmily etc. > Moreover, unifying the two terms gives enough room to actual pirates of > digital goods to create valid arguments in order to support their sick > logic. We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct and norms with a purpose. > > Which rules of trade does non-commercial file sharing break? And how do you > > propose to dea > The _real_ problem is lack of respect. > > Non commercial redistribution of CC-licensed goods does not break any > rules of trade. Piracy does. > > Let's stop mixing two fundamentally different terms. Piracy is an enemy > of any kind of trade of digital goods. Also, since pirates do not Thats a matter of academic discussion and depends how you value it. For pure economic value many kinds of non-commercial sharing are net economic wins. It can be harmful to investment, slightly harmful to creators in some cases, beneficial in others. And its got a moral aspect where rights owners are deprived of control (which is actually something governments started with mandatory licensing schemes, collecting societies, meddling radio regulations). > respect CC licenses, piracy should also be an enemy of the Creative > Commons Corporation and it's rather surprising that it is not considered > to be a threat by several members of this mailing list. Gives me the > impression the whole CC project is way outline. Actually I think you may be the extremist here. Some of us believe in evidence based policy making. Evidence says that copyright violation in the form of non commercial sharing is for many things a minor economic problem. Commercial sharing on the other hand directly rips off revenue from creators. In fact a lot of countries have gone down paths which allow many forms of sharing. Others have gone for classing only some kinds of non commercial sharing and re-use as lawful irrespective of copyright law. It's perfectly possible to violate CC licenses a you sa - in fact there is a continual problem with large "respectable" and mainly American corporations abusing CC-NC works. Alan From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Sat Jul 28 05:53:01 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:53:01 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> Message-ID: <20120728105301.52413549@ultron> > The fact that a bit of data is licensed in a way that it is allowed to > copy, distribute and build upon, if certain conditions are met, does > _not_ mean that CC endorses piracy. Sharing is one thing. Piracy is > another thing, and CC has nothing to do with it. Piracy is taking ships by force in international waters. Copyright infringmeent is neither that nor theft. > Furthermore, piracy is piracy. It's not radio. It breaks every single > rule of trade. It has always been that way, but, nowadays the problem is > that the technological progress has made piracy of digital goods > ridiculously easy. This fact is a problem that we have to deal with and > not a reason valid enough to justify piracy. Actually copyright is what breaks all the normal rules. It's an artificial monopoly and scarcity imposed by edict without contractual negotiation. Add collecting agencies and the rules preventing radio functioning is a proper free market and any claims about norms of trade are a joke. There are good reasons for copyright but it is an artificial solution to a particular problem - the true sales value of replicable non timely data is zero, yet the cost of production is not and the value to society is not. Sharing is a social norm. Borrowing copies of books is a social norm, copyng articles for people is a social norm. A business that fights the social norms usually comes unstuck in the end. In some countries "fair use" tries to deal with that. As its an atificial mechanism its very valid to ask how it should work, what the best value to society is and so forth, CC tries to split a lot of these norms out neatly for creators who want to share their content. However figuring out how the state shoud handle the deal with creators is an important element of what needs fixing. As it is in many areas the state gratuitously penalises an interferes with CC functioning in a free market. Alan From zotz at 100jamz.com Sat Jul 28 17:18:55 2012 From: zotz at 100jamz.com (drew Roberts) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:18:55 -0400 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> References: <500F1D34.7040603@phizz.demon.co.uk> <20120725122751.1dcbc44a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: <201207281718.55645.zotz@100jamz.com> On Wednesday 25 July 2012 07:27:51 Alan Cox wrote: > Live music is not an artificial scarcity. There is exactly one instance > of Machin? the band and they cannot perform live in two places at once. Except if you go for a Blue Man Group type play... ~;-) Then you can perform in multiple places at once. Still limited seats if you want them though. all the best, drew From zotz at 100jamz.com Sat Jul 28 20:01:17 2012 From: zotz at 100jamz.com (drew Roberts) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:01:17 -0400 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> References: <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> Message-ID: <201207282001.17596.zotz@100jamz.com> On Saturday 28 July 2012 09:59:37 George Notaras wrote: > Non commercial redistribution of CC-licensed goods does not break any > rules of trade. Piracy does. And what is non commercial redistribution of All Rights Reserved goods? all the best, drew From jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com Sun Jul 29 04:24:44 2012 From: jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com (Mike Dupont) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:24:44 +0000 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated > social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct > and norms with a purpose. > Just some thoughts on this issue that I had, The big problem i have with promoting creative commons is that it is based on copyright and ownership which many people don't understand. In my view CC is a reaction to copyright, but it requires first copyright to be in place, that is the big problem with places like south eastern europe where I have been working on promoting creative commons. There, there is no rule of law and enforcement of copyright is one of the last things to be implemented. Only when large corporations spend money to lobby for more copyright do things like FLOSS or CC become relevant or interesting. I have tried to talk to many modern teens all over the world, and tried to convince them to donate media to commons. many of them have no problem assigning all rights to facebook, because they dont need to think about it, maybe it is too hard for them to deal with all the hurdles of using the wikimedia commons. Now, I have been monitoring newly created wikipedia articles and ones that get deleted (my new project speedydeletion.wikia.com) there are many people who donate text and picture to wikipedia, even if they dont understand the license information. Many people just copy and paste data into articles etc. I have been contacting people and trying to get them to improve the articles and donate new media. Some are responding well. Some people consider to donate media to wikipedia /commons because they want to be seen, and wikipedia is one of the top web addresses in the world, but it is hard to explain the license issues to people easily. I guess the real issue is that on facebook people get seen, and on wikipedia as well, that is the primary motivation. Now for usage, The big problem that I see is that people are so used to just taking or downloading with no questions or thought, and it is difficult to introduce the idea of copyright to them. The best way I can describe the natural state of young people is some form of wild anarchy that knows no rules or bounds, I would not call the pirates, but digital anarchists. If we want to promote the digital commons we need to make a way for people to easily donate material and have it be seen. Giving them way to get publicity, good rankings in the search engines is the way to get the young people to accept the CC licensing, just like they accept the "evil" facebook terms of use. This is why, imho, we need an incubator project on wikipedia to help save the non-notable young rappers, artists and athletes from deletion. See also my oped that I wrote in 09 on this topic in kosovo http://sfck09.blogspot.de/2009/07/how-to-turn-software-pirates-into.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/h4ck3rm1k3/4270845311/in/photostream/ mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120729/be8a34f8/attachment.html From jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com Sun Jul 29 05:39:33 2012 From: jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com (Mike Dupont) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:39:33 +0000 Subject: [cc-community] Copying text from gnu website to wikipedia Message-ID: Hi there, I have found this article that was deleted from wikipedia for copyright violation, because it copied text from your website. http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/GNU_lightning_(deleted_04_Jun_2008_at_13:58) It has been repaired since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_lightning Now, what do you think that this was a valid copyright violation? should have the old article been deleted or was it a false positive? would there not be a way to deal with this? mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Sun Jul 29 06:52:42 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:52:42 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> Message-ID: <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 28/07/2012 17:25, Alan Cox wrote: >> Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. > > > Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. > Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. Hang on there matey lets knock this particular trope on the head - Pirates are completely unconcerned about the commercial abuse of the content they download. The piracy that most complain about wrt to music, TV shows, and films is done on cyberlocker sites the pirated content of which are linked to from link farms, which enable 1000s of downloads of any particular file. Both types of sites are commercialising the uploaded contents by adverts and by premium download speeds. For photographs the content is similarly commercialized by sites placing adverts around the content. Pirate site commercialize the content that they make available to others. > Many will only share with fmily etc. If piracy was limited to sharing between family members few would be concerned about it. >> Moreover, unifying the two terms gives enough room to actual pirates of >> digital goods to create valid arguments in order to support their sick >> logic. > > We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated > social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct > and norms with a purpose. Rubbish. Whilst Black musicians in the delta swapped and built upon each other's works, they were not ignorant of the fact, that when their works were used commercially by outsiders that they weren't being exploited. Sharing is a two-way street you share your toys with her and she shares her toys with you. In the case of online piracy we have you share Jane's toys with Sally, Sally shares Jill's toys with you, and Jack takes a profit in the exchange. Most societies and cultures would not recognise that as sharing. You really have to have slipped the meaning of sharing to get there. From rob at robmyers.org Sun Jul 29 07:32:13 2012 From: rob at robmyers.org (Rob Myers) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:32:13 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> On 07/29/2012 11:52 AM, P-M wrote: > On 28/07/2012 17:25, Alan Cox wrote: >>> Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. > >> Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. >> Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. > > Hang on there matey lets knock this particular trope on the head - Arr! > Pirates are completely unconcerned about the commercial abuse of the > content they download. The studies demonstrate this? Are you sure? > The piracy that most complain about wrt to music, > TV shows, and films is done on cyberlocker sites the pirated content of Only because they weren't around a decade ago. But a decade ago there were still complaints of piracy over peer-to-peer systems. The cyberlockers grew in popularity in part in response to the opportunities created by the suppression of p2p by the recording industry. > which are linked to from link farms, which enable 1000s of downloads of > any particular file. Both types of sites are commercialising the > uploaded contents by adverts and by premium download speeds. For You get free tiers on lockers, and as the response to the recent Megaupload debacle demonstrates, they certainly have SNIUs. Link farms are not caused by filesharing. They attach to any popular content or service. > photographs the content is similarly commercialized by sites placing > adverts around the content. Pirate site commercialize the content that > they make available to others. We can slip from "pirates" to "pirate sites" to "commercial pirate sites" if you like, but that doesn't mean you won't have to justify each step. > > Many will only share with fmily etc. > > > If piracy was limited to sharing between family members few would be > concerned about it. "Home taping is killing music, and it's illegal!" >>> Moreover, unifying the two terms gives enough room to actual pirates of >>> digital goods to create valid arguments in order to support their sick >>> logic. >> >> We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated >> social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct >> and norms with a purpose. > > Rubbish. Whilst Black musicians in the delta swapped and built upon each > other's works, they were not ignorant of the fact, that when their works > were used commercially by outsiders that they weren't being exploited. Which group of filesharers would you compare with these musicians whose work was stolen by the recording industry? > Sharing is a two-way street you share your toys with her and she shares > her toys with you. I hope they didn't steal those toys. Can we be sure they didn't? And shouldn't they pay the toy company if they're using the toys? And what if they don't want to play with the same toys at the same time? Is that still sharing? If she shares her toys with someone else as well, are they still sharing despite the fact that I don't get to play with the third party's toys? But how can this be, as sharing can only ever mean immediate mutual exchange!!! > In the case of online piracy we have you share Jane's > toys with Sally, Sally shares Jill's toys with you, and Jack takes a > profit in the exchange. There certainly are parasites in the ecosystem. If only it was less of a risk for individuals to just share files publicly and directly... > Most societies and cultures would not recognise that as sharing. You > really have to have slipped the meaning of sharing to get there. No, the meaning is constant. No amount of industry newspeak can disguise this. The recording industry has created an environment in which they are not the ones commercially exploiting individuals' filesharing and in which it is safer for individuals to pass files through secure and anonymous intermediaries. That was stupid of them. - Rob. From greg at grossmeier.net Sun Jul 29 12:07:04 2012 From: greg at grossmeier.net (Greg Grossmeier) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:07:04 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> Message-ID: <20120729160704.GC5043@x200s> > On 07/29/2012 11:52 AM, P-M wrote: > > On 28/07/2012 17:25, Alan Cox wrote: > >>> Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. > > > >> Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. > >> Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. > > > > Hang on there matey lets knock this particular trope on the head - > > Arr! > > > Pirates are completely unconcerned about the commercial abuse of the > > content they download. > > The studies demonstrate this? Are you sure? They don't, even the one commissioned by the 'content industries' themselves: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/20131119853/riaa-knows-tried-to-hide-that-most-unpaid-music-acquisition-comes-offline-swapping.shtml To respond to a bit of what I haven't quoted from P-M's message: As you can see, the majority of "piracy" comes from exactly the family and friends type trading (harddrive swapping and burning CDs). Digital lockers account for a small small percentage (4%ish). And P2P is only ~20%. Now, there may be issues with those numbers, but they are the latest ones I've come across. Again, are you sure that "the studies" say what you think they say? Links to those studies would be great. :) Greg -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | http://grossmeier.net A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Sun Jul 29 12:55:38 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:55:38 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> Message-ID: <50156B0A.4070802@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 29/07/2012 12:32, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/29/2012 11:52 AM, P-M wrote: >> On 28/07/2012 17:25, Alan Cox wrote: >>>> Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. >> >>> Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. >>> Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. >> >> Hang on there matey lets knock this particular trope on the head - > > Arr! > >> Pirates are completely unconcerned about the commercial abuse of the >> content they download. > > The studies demonstrate this? Are you sure? > Name a non commercial filesharing site is distributing infringing content that is amongst the top 20 filesharing sites. >> The piracy that most complain about wrt to music, >> TV shows, and films is done on cyberlocker sites the pirated content of > > Only because they weren't around a decade ago. But a decade ago there > were still complaints of piracy over peer-to-peer systems. The > cyberlockers grew in popularity in part in response to the opportunities > created by the suppression of p2p by the recording industry. > Now which p2p systems are you thinking about? >> which are linked to from link farms, which enable 1000s of downloads of >> any particular file. Both types of sites are commercialising the >> uploaded contents by adverts and by premium download speeds. For > > You get free tiers on lockers, and as the response to the recent > Megaupload debacle demonstrates, they certainly have SNIUs. > Sure and one can sell poppies out of Afghanistan to the cut flower market. > Link farms are not caused by filesharing. They attach to any popular > content or service. > And the ones like TVShack primarily link to copyright content and when the DMCA comes in, the link changes to point to another cyverlocker with the same content, as if suddenly Hit TV Show at URL-9999 was somewhow different from the same content on URL-9998. >> photographs the content is similarly commercialized by sites placing >> adverts around the content. Pirate site commercialize the content that >> they make available to others. > > We can slip from "pirates" to "pirate sites" to "commercial pirate > sites" if you like, but that doesn't mean you won't have to justify each > step. > Name 5 none commercial pirate sites? >> > Many will only share with fmily etc. >> >> >> If piracy was limited to sharing between family members few would be >> concerned about it. > > "Home taping is killing music, and it's illegal!" > So they said, and back in the 1970s or 1980s, they probably did lose a few sales ovee it. But are you seriously suggesting that the level of copying and distribution is the same now as it was back then? Besides whilst you might get the occasional moan about it, I don't recall copyright owners going after the home tapers that made mix tapes for friends and family, either back then or now. Examples please of where that has happened. >> >> Rubbish. Whilst Black musicians in the delta swapped and built upon each >> other's works, they were not ignorant of the fact, that when their works >> were used commercially by outsiders that they weren't being exploited. > > Which group of filesharers would you compare with these musicians whose > work was stolen by the recording industry? > Quite a few of the musicians did eventual get paid, it might have taken time, but they or their families, did manage to enforce copyright claims against the record companies and groups that had ripped them off. > >> In the case of online piracy we have you share Jane's >> toys with Sally, Sally shares Jill's toys with you, and Jack takes a >> profit in the exchange. > > There certainly are parasites in the ecosystem. If only it was less of a > risk for individuals to just share files publicly and directly... > There is nothing that stops you from sharing your own content publicly and directly. >> Most societies and cultures would not recognise that as sharing. You >> really have to have slipped the meaning of sharing to get there. > > No, the meaning is constant. No amount of industry newspeak can disguise > this. > Actually it is the filesharers that have changed the meaning or sharing to mean giving. If I have purchased a book I can share it with you, I can't share it with 10,000 others. This was clearer back inthe 70s and 80s when we talked a "making a copy" or "giving a copy" to a friend. We never talked about sharing a copy. That is modern import into 'sharing' to disguise the fact that something unethical is going on. From cc at phizz.demon.co.uk Sun Jul 29 14:45:46 2012 From: cc at phizz.demon.co.uk (P-M) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:45:46 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120729160704.GC5043@x200s> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> <20120729160704.GC5043@x200s> Message-ID: <501584DA.1090702@phizz.demon.co.uk> On 29/07/2012 17:07, Greg Grossmeier wrote: > > They don't, even the one commissioned by the 'content industries' > themselves: > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/20131119853/riaa-knows-tried-to-hide-that-most-unpaid-music-acquisition-comes-offline-swapping.shtml > > To respond to a bit of what I haven't quoted from P-M's message: > As you can see, the majority of "piracy" comes from exactly the family > and friends type trading (harddrive swapping and burning CDs). > You can bet that the content on the harddrive being copied didn't originate from the harddisk owners bought copies, but from some torrent/cyberlocker site. IOW these sites are the seeds for the 1000s of music files and videos on a harddrive. The kid with the 11,000 mp3 files and 15 bought CDs didn't download those files her self, they were copied from some other persons harddrive, but that person hadn't bought 11,000 songs either. http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/ A collection of 11,000 songs is near equivalent to 1000 CDs and its unlikely that the collection was ever built from bought CDs that were shared in the conventional sense between people known to each other. From tacet at qmpublishing.com Sun Jul 29 15:03:17 2012 From: tacet at qmpublishing.com (Kevin Phillips) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:03:17 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu><20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org><5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> Message-ID: <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> Hey Mike, Just wanted to say you made some great points here, we've recently come across the problem of "notability" on wikipedia for a project I'm involved with called GhostK. We have an older song called Stop which we released via ccMixter in 2007, it has a couple of million youtube views across a number of fan videos. The song is licensed CC-BY so it got picked by Youtube for AudioSwap, accounting for several more million views, to our surprise! Yet, we don't qualify as "notable" on Wikipedia, so we're not able to make a page about ourselves or at the very least about Stop. It's a shame youtube views don't provide a comparable "notable" metric to CD sales or national radio play. I'm sure that would help a lot of CC musicians skip over the wikipedia notability trip-wire. Kevin From: Mike Dupont Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:24 AM To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote: We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct and norms with a purpose. Just some thoughts on this issue that I had, The big problem i have with promoting creative commons is that it is based on copyright and ownership which many people don't understand. In my view CC is a reaction to copyright, but it requires first copyright to be in place, that is the big problem with places like south eastern europe where I have been working on promoting creative commons. There, there is no rule of law and enforcement of copyright is one of the last things to be implemented. Only when large corporations spend money to lobby for more copyright do things like FLOSS or CC become relevant or interesting. I have tried to talk to many modern teens all over the world, and tried to convince them to donate media to commons. many of them have no problem assigning all rights to facebook, because they dont need to think about it, maybe it is too hard for them to deal with all the hurdles of using the wikimedia commons. Now, I have been monitoring newly created wikipedia articles and ones that get deleted (my new project speedydeletion.wikia.com) there are many people who donate text and picture to wikipedia, even if they dont understand the license information. Many people just copy and paste data into articles etc. I have been contacting people and trying to get them to improve the articles and donate new media. Some are responding well. Some people consider to donate media to wikipedia /commons because they want to be seen, and wikipedia is one of the top web addresses in the world, but it is hard to explain the license issues to people easily. I guess the real issue is that on facebook people get seen, and on wikipedia as well, that is the primary motivation. Now for usage, The big problem that I see is that people are so used to just taking or downloading with no questions or thought, and it is difficult to introduce the idea of copyright to them. The best way I can describe the natural state of young people is some form of wild anarchy that knows no rules or bounds, I would not call the pirates, but digital anarchists. If we want to promote the digital commons we need to make a way for people to easily donate material and have it be seen. Giving them way to get publicity, good rankings in the search engines is the way to get the young people to accept the CC licensing, just like they accept the "evil" facebook terms of use. This is why, imho, we need an incubator project on wikipedia to help save the non-notable young rappers, artists and athletes from deletion. See also my oped that I wrote in 09 on this topic in kosovo http://sfck09.blogspot.de/2009/07/how-to-turn-software-pirates-into.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/h4ck3rm1k3/4270845311/in/photostream/ mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120729/99b311a6/attachment.html From jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com Sun Jul 29 16:14:00 2012 From: jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com (Mike Dupont) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:14:00 +0000 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> Message-ID: Well let me know, see if we saved it, and if not, I will host it for you. there are so many young artists who get deleted is it not funny. Also the wikipedia team is doing thier best to keep me from telling people about the project on wikipedia calling it spam. see the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdupont/SpeedyDeletionWikia On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Kevin Phillips wrote: > Hey Mike, > > Just wanted to say you made some great points here, we've recently come > across the problem of "notability" on wikipedia for a project I'm involved > with called GhostK. We have an older song called Stop which we released via > ccMixter in 2007, it has a couple of million youtube views across a number > of fan videos. The song is licensed CC-BY so it got picked by Youtube for > AudioSwap, accounting for several more million views, to our surprise! > > Yet, we don't qualify as "notable" on Wikipedia, so we're not able to make a > page about ourselves or at the very least about Stop. It's a shame youtube > views don't provide a comparable "notable" metric to CD sales or national > radio play. I'm sure that would help a lot of CC musicians skip over the > wikipedia notability trip-wire. > > Kevin > > From: Mike Dupont > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:24 AM > To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: Re: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" > > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >> >> We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated >> social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct >> and norms with a purpose. > > > Just some thoughts on this issue that I had, > > The big problem i have with promoting creative commons is that it is based > on copyright and ownership which many people don't understand. In my view CC > is a reaction to copyright, but it requires first copyright to be in place, > that is the big problem with places like south eastern europe where I have > been working on promoting creative commons. There, there is no rule of law > and enforcement of copyright is one of the last things to be implemented. > Only when large corporations spend money to lobby for more copyright do > things like FLOSS or CC become relevant or interesting. > > I have tried to talk to many modern teens all over the world, and tried to > convince them to donate media to commons. many of them have no problem > assigning all rights to facebook, because they dont need to think about it, > maybe it is too hard for them to deal with all the hurdles of using the > wikimedia commons. > > Now, I have been monitoring newly created wikipedia articles and ones that > get deleted (my new project speedydeletion.wikia.com) there are many people > who donate text and picture to wikipedia, even if they dont understand the > license information. Many people just copy and paste data into articles etc. > I have been contacting people and trying to get them to improve the articles > and donate new media. Some are responding well. > > Some people consider to donate media to wikipedia /commons because they want > to be seen, and wikipedia is one of the top web addresses in the world, but > it is hard to explain the license issues to people easily. I guess the real > issue is that on facebook people get seen, and on wikipedia as well, that is > the primary motivation. > > Now for usage, The big problem that I see is that people are so used to just > taking or downloading with no questions or thought, and it is difficult to > introduce the idea of copyright to them. > > The best way I can describe the natural state of young people is some form > of wild anarchy that knows no rules or bounds, I would not call the pirates, > but digital anarchists. If we want to promote the digital commons we need to > make a way for people to easily donate material and have it be seen. Giving > them way to get publicity, good rankings in the search engines is the way to > get the young people to accept the CC licensing, just like they accept the > "evil" facebook terms of use. > > This is why, imho, we need an incubator project on wikipedia to help save > the non-notable young rappers, artists and athletes from deletion. > > See also my oped that I wrote in 09 on this topic in kosovo > http://sfck09.blogspot.de/2009/07/how-to-turn-software-pirates-into.html > http://www.flickr.com/photos/h4ck3rm1k3/4270845311/in/photostream/ > > mike > > -- > James Michael DuPont > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org > Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com > Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org > Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 > > ________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community > > > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 From tom_a_sparks at yahoo.com.au Sun Jul 29 21:09:07 2012 From: tom_a_sparks at yahoo.com.au (Tom Sparks) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> Message-ID: <1343610547.3456.YahooMailNeo@web120403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I could be a pirate, in australia, if you want to watch a tv show wait 6 to 12 months, while I can get the show 48 hours after its been broadcasted, thanks our broadcasters :( on the flip side, if you want to use content legally from the big broadcasters, forget it (AU$75,000.00 for 1 hour) while they have all this good conents roting in their vaults :( --- tom_a_sparks "It's a nerdy thing I like to do" Please use ISO approved file formats excluding Office Open XML - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Ubuntu wiki page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/tomsparks 3 x (x)Ubuntu 10.04, Amiga A1200 WB 3.1, UAE AF 2006 Premium Edition, AF 2012 Plus Edition, Sam440 AOS 4.1.2, Roland DXY-1300 pen plotter, Cutok DC330 cutter/pen plotter Wanted: RiscOS system, GEOS system (C64/C128), Atari ST, Apple Macintosh (6502/68k/PPC only) ? From kbtomo30 at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 22:55:52 2012 From: kbtomo30 at gmail.com (Kieth Brian Tomo) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:55:52 +0800 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120729160704.GC5043@x200s> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> <20120729160704.GC5043@x200s> Message-ID: <235BFD37-8A0E-4374-94B7-79E8B69AC54E@gmail.com> Support kbtomo30 On Jul 30, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Greg Grossmeier wrote: > >> On 07/29/2012 11:52 AM, P-M wrote: >>> On 28/07/2012 17:25, Alan Cox wrote: >>>>> Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. >>> >>>> Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. >>>> Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. >>> >>> Hang on there matey lets knock this particular trope on the head - >> >> Arr! >> >>> Pirates are completely unconcerned about the commercial abuse of the >>> content they download. >> >> The studies demonstrate this? Are you sure? > > They don't, even the one commissioned by the 'content industries' > themselves: > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/20131119853/riaa-knows-tried-to-hide-that-most-unpaid-music-acquisition-comes-offline-swapping.shtml > > To respond to a bit of what I haven't quoted from P-M's message: > As you can see, the majority of "piracy" comes from exactly the family > and friends type trading (harddrive swapping and burning CDs). > > Digital lockers account for a small small percentage (4%ish). And P2P is > only ~20%. > > Now, there may be issues with those numbers, but they are the latest > ones I've come across. > > Again, are you sure that "the studies" say what you think they say? > Links to those studies would be great. :) > > Greg > > -- > | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | > | http://grossmeier.net A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community From kbtomo30 at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 22:57:11 2012 From: kbtomo30 at gmail.com (Kieth Brian Tomo) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:57:11 +0800 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <02A5CBD2-AD46-4F11-8DC1-C60BD6A1C8BD@gmail.com> kbtomo30 On Jul 29, 2012, at 6:52 PM, P-M wrote: > On 28/07/2012 17:25, Alan Cox wrote: >>> Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. >> >> >> Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. >> Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. > > > Hang on there matey lets knock this particular trope on the head - > Pirates are completely unconcerned about the commercial abuse of the > content they download. The piracy that most complain about wrt to music, > TV shows, and films is done on cyberlocker sites the pirated content of > which are linked to from link farms, which enable 1000s of downloads of > any particular file. Both types of sites are commercialising the > uploaded contents by adverts and by premium download speeds. For > photographs the content is similarly commercialized by sites placing > adverts around the content. Pirate site commercialize the content that > they make available to others. > > >> Many will only share with fmily etc. > > > If piracy was limited to sharing between family members few would be > concerned about it. > > > >>> Moreover, unifying the two terms gives enough room to actual pirates of >>> digital goods to create valid arguments in order to support their sick >>> logic. >> >> We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated >> social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct >> and norms with a purpose. > > > Rubbish. Whilst Black musicians in the delta swapped and built upon each > other's works, they were not ignorant of the fact, that when their works > were used commercially by outsiders that they weren't being exploited. > > Sharing is a two-way street you share your toys with her and she shares > her toys with you. In the case of online piracy we have you share Jane's > toys with Sally, Sally shares Jill's toys with you, and Jack takes a > profit in the exchange. > > Most societies and cultures would not recognise that as sharing. You > really have to have slipped the meaning of sharing to get there. > > > > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community From kbtomo30 at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 22:57:02 2012 From: kbtomo30 at gmail.com (Kieth Brian Tomo) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:57:02 +0800 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> Message-ID: <8041D46A-9CD8-4316-A794-7C9F3B37E755@gmail.com> kbtomo30 On Jul 29, 2012, at 7:32 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/29/2012 11:52 AM, P-M wrote: >> On 28/07/2012 17:25, Alan Cox wrote: >>>> Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. >> >>> Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. >>> Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. >> >> Hang on there matey lets knock this particular trope on the head - > > Arr! > >> Pirates are completely unconcerned about the commercial abuse of the >> content they download. > > The studies demonstrate this? Are you sure? > >> The piracy that most complain about wrt to music, >> TV shows, and films is done on cyberlocker sites the pirated content of > > Only because they weren't around a decade ago. But a decade ago there > were still complaints of piracy over peer-to-peer systems. The > cyberlockers grew in popularity in part in response to the opportunities > created by the suppression of p2p by the recording industry. > >> which are linked to from link farms, which enable 1000s of downloads of >> any particular file. Both types of sites are commercialising the >> uploaded contents by adverts and by premium download speeds. For > > You get free tiers on lockers, and as the response to the recent > Megaupload debacle demonstrates, they certainly have SNIUs. > > Link farms are not caused by filesharing. They attach to any popular > content or service. > >> photographs the content is similarly commercialized by sites placing >> adverts around the content. Pirate site commercialize the content that >> they make available to others. > > We can slip from "pirates" to "pirate sites" to "commercial pirate > sites" if you like, but that doesn't mean you won't have to justify each > step. > >>> Many will only share with fmily etc. >> >> >> If piracy was limited to sharing between family members few would be >> concerned about it. > > "Home taping is killing music, and it's illegal!" > >>>> Moreover, unifying the two terms gives enough room to actual pirates of >>>> digital goods to create valid arguments in order to support their sick >>>> logic. >>> >>> We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated >>> social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct >>> and norms with a purpose. >> >> Rubbish. Whilst Black musicians in the delta swapped and built upon each >> other's works, they were not ignorant of the fact, that when their works >> were used commercially by outsiders that they weren't being exploited. > > Which group of filesharers would you compare with these musicians whose > work was stolen by the recording industry? > >> Sharing is a two-way street you share your toys with her and she shares >> her toys with you. > > I hope they didn't steal those toys. Can we be sure they didn't? And > shouldn't they pay the toy company if they're using the toys? And what > if they don't want to play with the same toys at the same time? Is that > still sharing? > > If she shares her toys with someone else as well, are they still sharing > despite the fact that I don't get to play with the third party's toys? > But how can this be, as sharing can only ever mean immediate mutual > exchange!!! > >> In the case of online piracy we have you share Jane's >> toys with Sally, Sally shares Jill's toys with you, and Jack takes a >> profit in the exchange. > > There certainly are parasites in the ecosystem. If only it was less of a > risk for individuals to just share files publicly and directly... > >> Most societies and cultures would not recognise that as sharing. You >> really have to have slipped the meaning of sharing to get there. > > No, the meaning is constant. No amount of industry newspeak can disguise > this. > > The recording industry has created an environment in which they are not > the ones commercially exploiting individuals' filesharing and in which > it is safer for individuals to pass files through secure and anonymous > intermediaries. > > That was stupid of them. > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community From kbtomo30 at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 22:56:49 2012 From: kbtomo30 at gmail.com (Kieth Brian Tomo) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:56:49 +0800 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <235BFD37-8A0E-4374-94B7-79E8B69AC54E@gmail.com> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <501515FA.6010606@phizz.demon.co.uk> <50151F3D.4030304@robmyers.org> <20120729160704.GC5043@x200s> <235BFD37-8A0E-4374-94B7-79E8B69AC54E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <47D707E1-C88F-4527-A369-6C8CFD061076@gmail.com> kbtomo30 On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Kieth Brian Tomo wrote: > Support > > kbtomo30 > > On Jul 30, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Greg Grossmeier wrote: > >> >>> On 07/29/2012 11:52 AM, P-M wrote: >>>> On 28/07/2012 17:25, Alan Cox wrote: >>>>>> Piracy is about unconditional sharing and lack of respect for creators. >>>> >>>>> Read the studies - many "pirates" are very considerate of authors. >>>>> Commercial abuse is seen as evil by many who share stuff. >>>> >>>> Hang on there matey lets knock this particular trope on the head - >>> >>> Arr! >>> >>>> Pirates are completely unconcerned about the commercial abuse of the >>>> content they download. >>> >>> The studies demonstrate this? Are you sure? >> >> They don't, even the one commissioned by the 'content industries' >> themselves: >> >> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/20131119853/riaa-knows-tried-to-hide-that-most-unpaid-music-acquisition-comes-offline-swapping.shtml >> >> To respond to a bit of what I haven't quoted from P-M's message: >> As you can see, the majority of "piracy" comes from exactly the family >> and friends type trading (harddrive swapping and burning CDs). >> >> Digital lockers account for a small small percentage (4%ish). And P2P is >> only ~20%. >> >> Now, there may be issues with those numbers, but they are the latest >> ones I've come across. >> >> Again, are you sure that "the studies" say what you think they say? >> Links to those studies would be great. :) >> >> Greg >> >> -- >> | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | >> | http://grossmeier.net A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | >> _______________________________________________ >> List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community >> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community From tacet at qmpublishing.com Mon Jul 30 05:20:31 2012 From: tacet at qmpublishing.com (Kevin Phillips) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:20:31 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu><20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org><5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron><3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> Message-ID: <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> Thanks Mike, actually I think we just got as far as the information about notability and then just didn't bother. Talk about a barrier to entry! I think the guys who volunteered to write it for us just stopped in their tracks. Wow you got a lot of opposition on that page from the 'pedia hive mind, and who are we to call them on judgment when they clearly have a much better clue as to what's culturally enriching and what isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyan_Cat As for this discussion in general, if by "piracy" you guys are referring to copyright infringement, then keep in mind that copyright is very much an invention of benefit to government and media industries. They draw the maps and hide the gold. They play with stats and semantics, whilst most young kids don't understand or care, most young musicians don't either, they're too busy trying to make a living doing something they love. Measuring copyright infringement is like trying to measure word-of-mouth advertising, even back in the days of cassette tapes this was the case, never mind nowadays. It's a broken pencil....pointless. As proud CC musicians we'd rather supporters of Creative Commons shift focus away from the "piracy" debate because that's playing into the hands of the status quo, and instead help those who try and champion CC music instead. Let's start a "share for free" debate and find out why there's no big torrent trackers sharing CC-only materials, if that is indeed the case. It there is, then lets promote it, why don't we all know about it? Kevin -------------------------------------------------- From: "Mike Dupont" Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:14 PM To: Subject: Re: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" > Well let me know, see if we saved it, and if not, I will host it for you. > there are so many young artists who get deleted is it not funny. Also > the wikipedia team is doing thier best to keep me from telling people > about the project on wikipedia calling it spam. see the discussion > here > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdupont/SpeedyDeletionWikia > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Kevin Phillips > wrote: >> Hey Mike, >> >> Just wanted to say you made some great points here, we've recently come >> across the problem of "notability" on wikipedia for a project I'm >> involved >> with called GhostK. We have an older song called Stop which we released >> via >> ccMixter in 2007, it has a couple of million youtube views across a >> number >> of fan videos. The song is licensed CC-BY so it got picked by Youtube >> for >> AudioSwap, accounting for several more million views, to our surprise! >> >> Yet, we don't qualify as "notable" on Wikipedia, so we're not able to >> make a >> page about ourselves or at the very least about Stop. It's a shame >> youtube >> views don't provide a comparable "notable" metric to CD sales or national >> radio play. I'm sure that would help a lot of CC musicians skip over the >> wikipedia notability trip-wire. >> >> Kevin >> >> From: Mike Dupont >> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:24 AM >> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org >> Subject: Re: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Alan Cox >> wrote: >>> >>> We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated >>> social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct >>> and norms with a purpose. >> >> >> Just some thoughts on this issue that I had, >> >> The big problem i have with promoting creative commons is that it is >> based >> on copyright and ownership which many people don't understand. In my view >> CC >> is a reaction to copyright, but it requires first copyright to be in >> place, >> that is the big problem with places like south eastern europe where I >> have >> been working on promoting creative commons. There, there is no rule of >> law >> and enforcement of copyright is one of the last things to be implemented. >> Only when large corporations spend money to lobby for more copyright do >> things like FLOSS or CC become relevant or interesting. >> >> I have tried to talk to many modern teens all over the world, and tried >> to >> convince them to donate media to commons. many of them have no problem >> assigning all rights to facebook, because they dont need to think about >> it, >> maybe it is too hard for them to deal with all the hurdles of using the >> wikimedia commons. >> >> Now, I have been monitoring newly created wikipedia articles and ones >> that >> get deleted (my new project speedydeletion.wikia.com) there are many >> people >> who donate text and picture to wikipedia, even if they dont understand >> the >> license information. Many people just copy and paste data into articles >> etc. >> I have been contacting people and trying to get them to improve the >> articles >> and donate new media. Some are responding well. >> >> Some people consider to donate media to wikipedia /commons because they >> want >> to be seen, and wikipedia is one of the top web addresses in the world, >> but >> it is hard to explain the license issues to people easily. I guess the >> real >> issue is that on facebook people get seen, and on wikipedia as well, that >> is >> the primary motivation. >> >> Now for usage, The big problem that I see is that people are so used to >> just >> taking or downloading with no questions or thought, and it is difficult >> to >> introduce the idea of copyright to them. >> >> The best way I can describe the natural state of young people is some >> form >> of wild anarchy that knows no rules or bounds, I would not call the >> pirates, >> but digital anarchists. If we want to promote the digital commons we need >> to >> make a way for people to easily donate material and have it be seen. >> Giving >> them way to get publicity, good rankings in the search engines is the way >> to >> get the young people to accept the CC licensing, just like they accept >> the >> "evil" facebook terms of use. >> >> This is why, imho, we need an incubator project on wikipedia to help save >> the non-notable young rappers, artists and athletes from deletion. >> >> See also my oped that I wrote in 09 on this topic in kosovo >> http://sfck09.blogspot.de/2009/07/how-to-turn-software-pirates-into.html >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/h4ck3rm1k3/4270845311/in/photostream/ >> >> mike >> >> -- >> James Michael DuPont >> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org >> Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion >> http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com >> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org >> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 >> >> ________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> List info and archives at >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community >> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> List info and archives at >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community >> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community > > > > -- > James Michael DuPont > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org > Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion > http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com > Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org > Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community From jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com Mon Jul 30 11:31:59 2012 From: jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com (Mike Dupont) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:31:59 +0000 Subject: [cc-community] Notabiity, SpeedyDeletion and wikipedia was: measuring the so called "piracy" Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Phillips wrote: > Thanks Mike, actually I think we just got as far as the information about > notability and then just didn't bother. Talk about a barrier to entry! I > think the guys who volunteered to write it for us just stopped in their > tracks. Wow you got a lot of opposition on that page from the 'pedia hive > mind, and who are we to call them on judgment when they clearly have a much > better clue as to what's culturally enriching and what isn't. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyan_Cat > > Well, be bold, add the article and when they delete it I will automatically pick it up. I think at some point I will try and make new wikias for art, music and sports and feed them with articles that have been vetted on the speedydeletion. mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20120730/93a5b99c/attachment.html From agnucius at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 12:31:49 2012 From: agnucius at gmail.com (Patrick Anderson) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:31:49 -0600 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> Message-ID: Kevin Phillips wrote: > copyright is very much an invention of benefit > to government and media industries. I think I understand your intent here, but even the CC licenses require copyright to function. > Measuring copyright infringement is like trying > to measure word-of-mouth advertising, even > back in the days of cassette tapes this was the > case, never mind nowadays. > It's a broken pencil....pointless. If copyright has no point, then why do you use it? Why not release your work as Public Domain? Would I be a 'pirate' if I distributed your work without following the CC license you chose? Think of Copyright as a 'hook' into the legal system which can be used to 'hang' various licenses. When people say "Copyright" in anger, they are often referring to the effects of proprietary licenses. But Copyright can be also be used to benefit society when CC licenses and Free/Open-Source licenses are hung on that legal hook. Sincerely, Patrick Anderson http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com From ml at gondwanaland.com Mon Jul 30 13:47:05 2012 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:47:05 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Mike Dupont wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >> We teach children to share and be nice. The whole issue is a complicated >> social and cultural one. Copyright is a distortion of cultural instinct >> and norms with a purpose. > > Just some thoughts on this issue that I had, > > The big problem i have with promoting creative commons is that it is based > on copyright and ownership which many people don't understand. In my view CC > is a reaction to copyright, but it requires first copyright to be in place, > that is the big problem with places like south eastern europe where I have > been working on promoting creative commons. There, there is no rule of law > and enforcement of copyright is one of the last things to be implemented. > Only when large corporations spend money to lobby for more copyright do > things like FLOSS or CC become relevant or interesting. Most people aren't interested in most things most of the time. But at least FLOSS ought be interesting to people who would be interested in it, regardless of lack of copyright enforcement. Most non-free software is still non-free even without copyright, because source is not provided. Explaining FLOSS (and to an only slightly lesser extent, other free/open stuff) primarily relative to copyright and copyright licenses is a good way to make it seem irrelevant and uninteresting, and not just to Kosovan teenagers. Sharing and collaboration need to be cultivated even if one particular policy barrier seems to not exist (but of course it is looming, and anyone genuinely interested in the political aspects ought see the need to be more proactive than waiting for enforcement lobbying to react against). > I have tried to talk to many modern teens all over the world, and tried to > convince them to donate media to commons. many of them have no problem > assigning all rights to facebook, because they dont need to think about it, > maybe it is too hard for them to deal with all the hurdles of using the > wikimedia commons. > > Now, I have been monitoring newly created wikipedia articles and ones that > get deleted (my new project speedydeletion.wikia.com) This is an interesting and hard project! > there are many people > who donate text and picture to wikipedia, even if they dont understand the > license information. Many people just copy and paste data into articles etc. > I have been contacting people and trying to get them to improve the articles > and donate new media. Some are responding well. > > Some people consider to donate media to wikipedia /commons because they want > to be seen, and wikipedia is one of the top web addresses in the world, but > it is hard to explain the license issues to people easily. I guess the real > issue is that on facebook people get seen, and on wikipedia as well, that is > the primary motivation. > > Now for usage, The big problem that I see is that people are so used to just > taking or downloading with no questions or thought, and it is difficult to > introduce the idea of copyright to them. > > The best way I can describe the natural state of young people is some form > of wild anarchy that knows no rules or bounds, I would not call the pirates, > but digital anarchists. If we want to promote the digital commons we need to > make a way for people to easily donate material and have it be seen. Giving > them way to get publicity, good rankings in the search engines is the way to > get the young people to accept the CC licensing, just like they accept the > "evil" facebook terms of use. I wonder if it is really necessary to introduce copyright in order to explain what is acceptable on Wikimedia Commons, at least as an approximation. A site could have a policy of accepting only works that the author of the works expressed a desire to have the works distributed there. This policy is respected by uploading your own works or works that the author have placed this "please share" notice on. We only want notices that say "please share everywhere" otherwise we can't assume author would want their works distributed here. Mike From zotz at 100jamz.com Mon Jul 30 14:15:40 2012 From: zotz at 100jamz.com (drew Roberts) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:15:40 -0400 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201207301415.40631.zotz@100jamz.com> On Monday 30 July 2012 13:47:05 Mike Linksvayer wrote: > A site could have a policy of accepting only works that > the author of the works expressed a desire to have the works > distributed there. I think I get your intent, but stating it this way, what about the works of the ancients? all the best, drew From ml at gondwanaland.com Mon Jul 30 15:13:15 2012 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:13:15 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <201207301415.40631.zotz@100jamz.com> References: <201207301415.40631.zotz@100jamz.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:15 AM, drew Roberts wrote: > On Monday 30 July 2012 13:47:05 Mike Linksvayer wrote: >> A site could have a policy of accepting only works that >> the author of the works expressed a desire to have the works >> distributed there. > > I think I get your intent, but stating it this way, what about the works of > the ancients? Ancients have no desires, so we absorb their works as the earth absorbs their bodies. (Morbid aside: post-death copyright is like an impermeable coffin. ) But we give 70 years for their spirits to settle down, since so much of humanity is superstitious. Mike From tacet at qmpublishing.com Mon Jul 30 17:17:12 2012 From: tacet at qmpublishing.com (Kevin Phillips) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:17:12 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu><20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org><5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron><3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC><69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> Message-ID: <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> Hey Patrick, -------------------------------------------------- From: "Patrick Anderson" Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:31 PM To: Subject: Re: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" > Kevin Phillips wrote: >> copyright is very much an invention of benefit >> to government and media industries. > > I think I understand your intent here, but even > the CC licenses require copyright to function. Yeah, I understand that. >> Measuring copyright infringement is like trying >> to measure word-of-mouth advertising, even >> back in the days of cassette tapes this was the >> case, never mind nowadays. >> It's a broken pencil....pointless. > > If copyright has no point, then why do you use it? I didn't say copyright has no point, I said trying to measure copyright infringement has no point. > Why not release your work as Public Domain? We have thought about that, but honestly it's as much about the vehicle as it is the driver. We used websites like ccMixter, which offer CC licenses. I'm not aware of a website or release conduit which offers Public Domain as an option. > Would I be a 'pirate' if I distributed your work > without following the CC license you chose? No, not unless you have one leg and a parrot on your shoulder. By "pirate" I think you mean you'll share the file, which you can already do, go ahead. To break the terms of the BY license you'd have to remove our details from the file, you could replace our details with your own to "pass off" the song as yours. You'd be breaking the terms of the license, yes, but our ability to hunt you down and take away your parrot is dictated by our resources and motivation to do so. As we've already made the distribution and sharing free via the BY license and have a head-start on your "version" we'd probably just ignore you, or ask you nicely to credit us if it became an issue. CC licenses are interesting because they all provide sharing at their core, which is kind of contrary to the spirit of copyright, or at least how copyright is now interpreted. After all, copyright infringement occurs when someone wants something for free which isn't normally distributed that way, or when someone wishes to profit from something which isn't theirs to begin with. In both cases they're assuming the rights of the owner, to copy or to sell. > > Think of Copyright as a 'hook' into the legal system > which can be used to 'hang' various licenses. > > When people say "Copyright" in anger, they are often > referring to the effects of proprietary licenses. > > But Copyright can be also be used to benefit society > when CC licenses and Free/Open-Source licenses > are hung on that legal hook. I'm fully aware of the differences, and indeed how CC licenses work. My beef with this topic of conversation originally was to question the sanity of even attempting to measure the immeasurable. When there are so many other more urgent issues for the CC community to deal with. You inadvertently brought up a good one, underlining the difficulty for a small unsigned band to maintain some degree of attribution when any Tom, Dick or Patrick could quite easily rename a file or lay claim to ownership. Who we gonna call? Kevin > Sincerely, > Patrick Anderson > http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community From agnucius at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 17:41:49 2012 From: agnucius at gmail.com (Patrick Anderson) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:41:49 -0600 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> Message-ID: Kevin Phillips wrote: > No, not unless you have one leg and a parrot on your shoulder. Har, har, har. ;) > I think you mean you'll share the file, > which you can already do, go ahead. Well, no, I meant whether I broke the license - maybe not giving attribution when the license is CC-BY-SA. But secretly I was thinking more about the GNU GPL's 'source' requirement. > our ability to hunt you down and take > away your parrot is dictated by our > resources and motivation to do so. Well, maybe we need something like the Software Freedom Law Center http://SoftwareFreedom.org for works under CC licenses... Or like http://GPL-Violations.org but http://CC-Violations.org ? From simone.aliprandi at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 04:52:21 2012 From: simone.aliprandi at gmail.com (Simone Aliprandi) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:52:21 +0200 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" Message-ID: >> Here is my new article >> "Measuring the so called "piracy": a commented review of the most >> important empirical studies" >> http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/07/measuring-so-called-piracy-commented.html >> published in SCIRES-IT (a smart openaccess review, licensed with CC). > > I keep wondering why this stuff is posted on a CC list. As far as I > know, the CC licenses respect intellectual property and provide creators > with a flexible way to distribute their Works that is compatible with > the Digital Era. > > The fact that a bit of data is licensed in a way that it is allowed to > copy, distribute and build upon, if certain conditions are met, does > _not_ mean that CC endorses piracy. Sharing is one thing. Piracy is > another thing, and CC has nothing to do with it. Thanks for teaching me what is piracy and what are the CC licenses, but I have a PhD about these issues (and I also wrote a book about CC: http://www.aliprandi.org/cc-user-guide ) I decided to post "this stuff" here just because the article is published on an open access and CC licensed review, and because in my opinion it can have lots of connection with the topics of this mailing-list. I apologize if anybody can feel it as off-topic. However, my hope was that someone can try to read the article (maybe using Google Translate or something similar) and write some comments about it. Instead, a general discussion about the sense of "piracy" has started, with no connection about the true subject of the article. Thanks, bye. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org From lucas.gonze at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 12:13:11 2012 From: lucas.gonze at gmail.com (Lucas Gonze) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:13:11 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Simone Aliprandi wrote: > However, my hope was that someone can try to read the article (maybe > using Google Translate or something similar) and write some comments > about it. > Instead, a general discussion about the sense of "piracy" has started, > with no connection about the true subject of the article. The topic of "piracy" creates madness. One suggestion about your article: don't use the word "piracy." The word itself begs the conclusions. Whether there is much piracy or little, and whether it does much harm or not much, any piracy is clearly too much. Discussing your article by name requires me to accept that this is a reasonable description of what is happening. I personally say "unauthorized distribution" or "infringement" because these are neutral terms. From lucas.gonze at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 12:19:01 2012 From: lucas.gonze at gmail.com (Lucas Gonze) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:19:01 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Simone, I am finding the Italian is too much of a barrier. Could you tell us more about your findings here? Also, I am wondering about what your findings mean for creators of permissively licensed media. > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Simone Aliprandi > wrote: >> However, my hope was that someone can try to read the article (maybe >> using Google Translate or something similar) and write some comments >> about it. >> Instead, a general discussion about the sense of "piracy" has started, >> with no connection about the true subject of the article. From gnot at g-loaded.eu Tue Jul 31 17:10:33 2012 From: gnot at g-loaded.eu (George Notaras) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:10:33 +0300 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu><20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org><5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron><3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> Message-ID: <501849C9.3010806@g-loaded.eu> On 30/7/2012 12:20 ??, Kevin Phillips wrote: > copyright is very much an > invention of benefit to government and media industries. They draw the > maps and hide the gold. The problem is the _management_ of those rights that derive from the copyright law and _not_ the rights themselves. Copyright does not exist only for big companies. AFAIK, you are still free to create useful or entertaining digital goods and release them to the public under the terms of a liberal license. You see any problems with that? Moreover, your rights, that derive from the copyright law, which are passed to the users of your Work by the license terms, guarantee that your gift to humanity cannot be taken away by anyone. From gnot at g-loaded.eu Tue Jul 31 17:22:14 2012 From: gnot at g-loaded.eu (George Notaras) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:22:14 +0300 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu><20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org><5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron><3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC><69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> Message-ID: <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> On 31/7/2012 12:17 ??, Kevin Phillips wrote: >> Why not release your work as Public Domain? > > We have thought about that, but honestly it's as much about the vehicle as > it is the driver. We used websites like ccMixter, which offer CC licenses. > I'm not aware of a website or release conduit which offers Public Domain as > an option. I respect you, but this argument is cheap. If you do not like copyright and intellectual property, then you should release your creations to the Public Domain. You have a choice. From ml at gondwanaland.com Tue Jul 31 18:36:18 2012 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:36:18 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Kevin Phillips wrote: > We have thought about that, but honestly it's as much about the vehicle as > it is the driver. We used websites like ccMixter, which offer CC licenses. > I'm not aware of a website or release conduit which offers Public Domain as > an option. http://ccmixter.org/tags/cczero Admittedly most sites that directly facilitate licensing don't include a public domain option. A couple others that do: http://archive.org/search.php?query=licenseurl%3A%28http\%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Fpublicdomain%2Fzero%2F1.0%2F%29 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CC-Zero Mike From tacet at qmpublishing.com Tue Jul 31 18:42:49 2012 From: tacet at qmpublishing.com (Kevin Phillips) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:42:49 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] Public Domain as an option - via measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu><20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org><5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu><20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron><3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC><69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC><6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "George Notaras" Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:22 PM To: Subject: Re: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" > On 31/7/2012 12:17 ??, Kevin Phillips wrote: > >>> Why not release your work as Public Domain? >> >> We have thought about that, but honestly it's as much about the vehicle >> as >> it is the driver. We used websites like ccMixter, which offer CC >> licenses. >> I'm not aware of a website or release conduit which offers Public Domain >> as >> an option. > > I respect you, but this argument is cheap. > > If you do not like copyright and intellectual property, then you should > release your creations to the Public Domain. You have a choice. It's not an argument, it's our reality. Websites like ccMixter create a small community, where contributors are encouraged to work together, learn and develop. Like it or not, these websites have their terms and their license preferences. Those which are aligned to record labels are purely (c) and those which are not tend to offer Creative Commons licenses, because they offer a theoretical safe-sandbox for musicians. We could release things into Public Domain ourselves, sure, but unfortunately we're not Radiohead so there'd be little use. Literally. If we release music via ccMixter we at least stand a chance of being remixed and make some kind of contribution to a community. We also stand a chance of random songs being made popular by Audio Swap etc. It's not that I don't "like" copyright, by the way, it's just not always appropriate because we're playing a slightly different game. We're not signed to a label, we don't do live shows (we live in three different countries), we don't have a million followers/subscribers/likers. The closest we come to the (c) model is selling the odd download via itunes, because fans have requested it for their own convenience.....even when we already have free downloads in numerous places. Perplexing but true. Kevin > _______________________________________________ > List info and archives at > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community > Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community From ml at gondwanaland.com Tue Jul 31 18:47:08 2012 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:47:08 -0700 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:22 PM, George Notaras wrote: > On 31/7/2012 12:17 ??, Kevin Phillips wrote: >>> Why not release your work as Public Domain? >> >> We have thought about that, but honestly it's as much about the vehicle as >> it is the driver. We used websites like ccMixter, which offer CC licenses. >> I'm not aware of a website or release conduit which offers Public Domain as >> an option. > > I respect you, but this argument is cheap. > > If you do not like copyright and intellectual property, then you should > release your creations to the Public Domain. You have a choice. I mostly agree, but copyleft is also a non-hypocritical choice. It can be seen as an attempt to negate copyright regulation (whether negation is optimal up front as in a public domain dedication or on an ironically attempted ongoing basis with copyleft is a practical, strategic question) mixed with a vision for pro-sharing regulation (eg forced source revelation) that is conceptually independent from riding on top of anti-sharing regulation. (But on the strategic question, I tend to agree with a version of the obscurity is a greater threat than "piracy" observation: obscurity is a greater threat than enclosure.) Mike From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Tue Jul 31 18:52:04 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:52:04 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] Public Domain as an option - via measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> Message-ID: <20120731235204.21ccd3bf@ultron> > The closest we come to the (c) model is selling the odd download via itunes, > because fans have requested it for their own convenience.....even when we > already have free downloads in numerous places. Perplexing but true. The real business of the music industry has always largely been convenience - we find good artists so you don't have to - we get music into shops so you don't have to phone the band - we get stuff into shop for artists, do their PR, etc although the industry often forgets this. Ditto other open content: look how much PD stuff Amazon shifts on Kindle because its simply not worth saving 77p to go find a nice copy download it and reformat it nicely. Alan From alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Tue Jul 31 18:55:57 2012 From: alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:55:57 +0100 Subject: [cc-community] measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> Message-ID: <20120731235557.747c1dd3@ultron> > If you do not like copyright and intellectual property, then you should > release your creations to the Public Domain. You have a choice. PD v CC etc has other considerations such as liability clauses. Alan From davidk at blackice.com.au Tue Jul 31 19:47:49 2012 From: davidk at blackice.com.au (David and Michelle Kitson) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:47:49 +0800 Subject: [cc-community] Public Domain as an option - via measuring the so called "piracy" In-Reply-To: <20120731235204.21ccd3bf@ultron> References: <50136EB6.4060003@g-loaded.eu> <20120728115155.142d7221@lap.shlomifish.org> <5013F049.5040205@g-loaded.eu> <20120728172539.64ea798c@ultron> <3B65859742D84E83AA9881229AA63AFD@KevinPC> <69CB3B02D5AD435FA86383967A6199CE@KevinPC> <6AA2255FAAF44B168071E5CADFED3E8C@KevinPC> <50184C86.1030703@g-loaded.eu> <20120731235204.21ccd3bf@ultron> Message-ID: <50186EA5.8020401@blackice.com.au> On 1/08/2012 6:52 AM, Alan Cox wrote: > Ditto other open content: look how much PD stuff Amazon shifts on Kindle > because its simply not worth saving 77p to go find a nice copy download > it and reformat it nicely. > > Alan > Sorry Alan, that's a long way from Amazon's official position from what I can see and it's a bit of a slur to those of us who publish on Amazon under CC also. Amazon usually provide original unmodified PD for free, professionally formatted. Their policy allows others to add value to PD and resell it at a profit, but only if it meets policy - In a nutshell, it requires significant changes to the original, being either translated, annotated or illustrated or a combination of those. ref: Publishing Public Domain Content, Kindle Direct Publishing. Sure, convenience is a part of it, but there's a real opposition to anything free on Amazon due to the buyer assumption that it's not worth anything if it's free. I'm pretty sure that attitude extends out far beyond Amazon and into the free world and don't forget that people who go looking for content at told to avoid free content, in some distorted belief that the content available fits into only three categories. Commercial, Pirate and Garbage. Even Amazon discriminate between free and paid books ( I assume for commercial reasons ) and free books are excluded from most paid-content lists, though they are permitted to compete directly with paid content in the "Best Rated" section only. There's probably as much free content on Amazon as there is paid, but there is only one free book in the top 100 genre titles on Kindle at the moment. It's CC also, thought I can't say if any of the paid content might be CC. Given free content is just as convenient as paid content on such sites, you might find your argument doesn't relate much to reality. While it's generally true that free content tends to have less in the way of formatting and suffers from editing issues, it's also true to say that paying for content, especially in the 77p range, doesn't address this issue either. Especially since we're talking paid-PD-content that has most likely been uploaded by people other than professionals, there's probably not that much difference between the free and lower-paid PD content in terms of quality at all. Regards David.