Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>]

Hi, Marci:  I think I may not have communicated my presuppositions (as
for the purpose of discussion) clearly.  If you read what I wrote, I
attempted to state that in the Digital Age, and with the aid of the
Creative Commons Project, individuals are able to license their works,
using the end of a spectrum that starts with the Public Domain, i.e., no
restrictions, whatsoever, and add restrictions as reasonably necessary,
until at some point, their license looks just like the "old" copyright
law now automatically imposed on all works.  It's a mind-set thing.

What's interesting about this new way of approaching creative works
licensing in the Digital Age, is that copyright attorneys will find an
enormous surge in clientele, along with a rather different approach to
working through legal issues that should prove most beneficial to
society, both here in the United States, as well as internationally.

Let's just suppose, by way of example, that an individual offers a free
audio demo of her work on the Internet, and also has a link to her web
site.  On her web site are other audio works included in a "Deluxe CD"
that is licensed with added restrictions that include no commercial use
without contacting her first.  Now, suppose as well, that someone
decides to rip and burn, and place on a P2P network, some of those works
with the added restrictions without her permission.  Does she lose
money?  Of course, but, at the same time, note that the quality of the
work is diminished, and that the "Deluxe CD" is only available by
purchasing from her, directly.  Result?  A reasonable person writes off
the lost revenue as marketing, and keeps on "truckin'".  The people that
buy the "Deluxe CD" have something special.  The people that download
songs without payment have something of lesser value.  Who wins? 
Everyone.  That's the worst case scenario, as presented by a reasonable
person in response to the same scenario as written by the RIAA who wants
people to believe they are all but out of business, if they can't sue
for having their copyrighted works available on P2P networks.

Now, maybe you can help me here.  Is the RIAA suing because they own the
copyrights purchased under contract with recording artists?  Or, are
they suing because they "represent" the artists who own the copyrights,
and they are standing in the artists' shoes?

Thank you for your prompt response, and best wishes in your continuing 
academic career.  We have a newsletter that comes out once a month.  I
would invite you to join, and/or encourage your students to do so as
well.  We would be delighted to share your perspective if you want to
contribute, or your students' perspectives, with all who read the
newsletter.  The signup page is:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/community_studios

Thanks,
Tom
P.S. Technology trumped law or morals when the Gutenburg Press was
invented, and technology trumps law or morals when the computer
empowered the individual.  No utopian groupthink here.  How about there?
:)
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 04:37, Hamilton02 AT aol.com wrote:
> I disagree with your presuppositions.  As I've written in the past (and 
> there 
> is no reason you would have read those columns), the Internet will permit 
> individual artists to enforce their copyright, rather than industry.  That 
> does 
> not mean, however, that copyright is not necessary.  Now, technology needs 
> to 
> be improved to permit them to enforce their rights in their works, but that 
> will come.  Finally, the notion that technology will trump law or morals is 
> utopian groupthink, and nothing more.   Best regards, Marci Hamilton