Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[Anatoly Volynets <av AT total-knowledge.com>]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, tom poe wrote:

> 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
> 

I disagree with all copyright justifications I ever heard, and the very
idea of copyright. Publishing monopoly never proved it has served the
purpose to promote progress of science, arts, learning... It does not
correspond to the nature of arts and culture in general terms. 
Self-confident tone of pro-copyright argument based on nothing, but more 
than 300 year long cultivated habitual perception. Institution of slavery 
has (has, not had!) been practiced by mankind much longer, but this fact 
does not make it humane.

I want to stress the central point to the entire issue (in my view, of
course): all ideas, laws, institutions and practices driven by publishing
monopolies totally ignore reality of culture, its "law of nature".

This fact could not be clearly seen in the Age of Enlightenment, but it
must be today. Surprisingly, the Framers were able to step in the future
by one foot: the respective item in the Constitution clearly suggests that
exclusive rights to discoveries and writings are not natural ones and may
be tolerated for limited times for purpose to promote the progress. This 
is why I say "one foot": exclusive rights do not serve the purpose. It is 
our duty today to pull in the second foot and recognize that culture must 
be governed according its law of nature and this way will pay back.

Anatoly Volynets
http://www.total-knowledge.com