[Community_studios] Citizens of Athens! Was: Copyright is essentially wrong

Anatoly Volynets anatoly at total-knowledge.com
Tue May 14 13:33:01 EDT 2002

> > Alex: I am glad you brought in few new points to land the problem on
> > cultural fields. You want to control your work to protect it against
> > abuse. You want to be the judge.
> >
> > Imagine, one day A Poet comes on Agora and says:
> > Citizens of Athens! I brought in my new play (it never happened this way)
> > and want you to judge it. You two ignorants in the first row on the left,
> > close your ears: I do not want you to hear it at all. You in the second
> > row on the right, please do not say a word: your vulgar speech does not
> > fit in here, despite you do understand things. Those three friends in the
> > middle of the last row do whatever you want here, but don't you dare to
> > retell my play outside: you will forget the major point, I am sure...
> >
> > The point is that your creation, make a guess... does not belong to you.
> > It belongs to me - your reader, listener, and so forth.
> > I think I know who are the real and major pirates, abusers and thieves in
> > cultural fields: those, who buy works (exclusive rights) out using laws,
> > which protect 'rights to make copies'.
> > Let's take one example. For me the 'Lord of the Rings' looks like abuse
> > of the Tolkien's book. If rights to make a movie based on the book are
> > not bought, then other movie, real work of art may appear, otherwise we
> > are all stuck to the abuse.
> > You cannot control turnover of the great creation. That is why great
> > creators never care about it. They are sure in what they want to say to
> > people and this is for people to decide what to do with it.
> >
> > Anatoly
> Exactly! I'm glad we agree on how the world SHOULD be. My works are for
> everyone, and I certainly hope you enjoy and share them with anyone who
> enjoys them. The URLs to do so are in my signature. Just give me credit
> when you do share them, please. :)
Everybody would be glad to find co-thinker, me too. So we do know now 'how 
the world should be'? The next question to answer is, how to get there?

> Since copyrights came about as a response to ignorant people's abuse,
> specifically to protect those that have been abused, brought into law by
> those wishing to protect themselves, how do we assure those who feel they
> need to be protected by copyrights that they would be better off without
> them?

Basically, disgusting idea of "copyright" = "right to make copies" came about 
as a response to the Guthenberg's press, which destroyed monopoly of licensed 
scribes. Fortunately they couldn't fight it right away, so book publishing in 
England had grown freely for more than two hundred years. When copyright was 
finally inlawed the quantity of books published in England decreased ten (!) 
times from 6000 to 600 (http://www.wipout.net/essays/0310guten.htm, all other 
essays there http://www.wipout.net/essays/ are quite useful to get the 
picture). I do not need any other argument against this completely abnormal, 
inhuman idea.

>The person in your example, unfortunately, does exist, in many
> artists. Artists that have grown up seeing that some people in the audience
> WILL mistreat their work, sometimes for commercial gain, sometimes for bad
> intents, sometimes out of incompetence. This is why so many artisits spend
> hours, days, weeks creating their magnum opus, only to show it quite
> secretively to a select group of friends, and no one else.

This is rather ill situation: an Author who afraids to go public? But 
copyright is here? What they afraid of? I am sorry, Alex, your argument 
doesn't work. A protection under copyright is illusion. I'd rather believe 
that copyright brings about those fears of your friends: somebody having 
money (=>lawyers) may steal a work anyway and have it protected forever. 
Under 'athorright' it cannot happen just because everybody may print and 
reprint your work and therefore sooner or later it becomes clear, where the 
origin is and which entity is dishonest using the work and not granting a 
credit to the real author.

> My point is only, I am not prepared to have every creative person in the
> world resent me for taking away what little protection (real or perceived)
> they have based on MY own moral beliefs. I am, however, prepared to work
> with them to help create an environment that makes them feel free enough to
> let go their safety blanket on their own. You can't force someone to be
> free. That would be every bit as dictatorial as forcing them to be slaves.
> :)
> Alex Heizer
> http://www.synchcorp.com/alex
> http://www.synchcorp.com/alexheizer

Well, I have never said that Author should not be protected. Some ideas must 
be articulated yet: how to protect 'authorright', how to ensure author's 
incentives (financial, legal, and others). Frankly, I just put aside 
'positive thinking' in the meantime, because (we agree on that) I see very 
few people, who do realize abnormality and danger of the very idea of the 
'right to make copies'. You may propose the best solutions for the problem 
and they will ask you: what is this for?


More information about the Community_studios mailing list