Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>]

Hi, Marci:  You asked if I could provide one period of history where a
free commons existed, and lasted, and fostered great art.  I don't
believe there was one, though I could be mistaken.  Now, let me ask you
to name one period of history where copyright existed, lasted, and
fostered great art?  Are there two? 

Keeping in mind that the monopoly grant to individuals by the framers of
our country permitted authors and inventors to enjoy exclusivity for
their works for most of their expected lifetimes [~36 years at that
time, I believe], continued to be the "norm" until the 1960's, at which
time, we moved away from, and towards a far different purpose for
granting monopolies to individual creativity, as you well know.  

If we view history as you suggest, starting from the early renaissance
period where artists relied upon patronage to pursue their interests, to
a point at which the United States empowered the individual with a means
to earn income from their creativity, to today, where the individual no
longer needs a monopoly to earn income from their creativity, then what
is the purpose of continuing to grant monopolies for what appears to be
perpetuity?  A free commons represents the ideal manifestation of what
we teach our children in kindergarten.  "Don't touch Jonny's truck while
he's playing with it."  A free commons permits individual authors and
creators to share ideas, not share "things".  In a free commons,
intellectual property has no meaning.  Ideas are freely shared and
encouraged.  Creations and works are respected.  One example that stands
out, is Peter, Paul and Mary's song, "The Wedding Song".  Dedicated to
the Public Domain, yet, if you visit their web site, they report
receiving over $2 million USD thus far from what I call, the free
commons.

Now, maybe I need to go spend some time with your writings:
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/ip_program/hamilton.htm

Open Studios is all about encouraging and promoting community-based
recording studios.  We have local access television as one model
championed by government, and, hopefully, our government will recognize
the value of championing community-based recording studios as well. 
Between the two infrastructural components, we should see projects like
Internet2 become accessible to all the citizens throughout the world
that might contribute to a civil society.  The interesting thing about
community-based recording studios, is that they don't necessarily
require out-of-pocket money to build, thanks to Open Source projects
like Stanford's CCRMA, and the universities and research centres in
Europe that are working on the AGNULA project.  Not quite utopian
thinkgroup, but close.

The point I want to make, and that you might not be aware of, is that if
a state governor were to encourage every community in her state to build
and operate a community-based recording studio, and if every community
produced just 10 CD's that 100 people purchased/donated just $10, and
there were 10,000 communities in the state, how much income would be
realized on an annual basis?  Plug in your state numbers, and see what
comes up.  Now, consider how many nonprofit organizations in each
community will produce CD's, DVD's, and generate fund-raising campaigns
if they have free recording services available through community-based
recording studios?  You see, Marci, sometimes utopian groupthink has a
practical application, if not in history, certainly in the Digital Age. 
:)
Exciting, isn't it?
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/

On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 06:55, Hamilton02 AT aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/6/2003 8:58:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> tompoe AT amihost.com writes:
> 
> > What you're saying, is, in the final analysis, any success they might
> > enjoy as a result of this creative effort is doomed, is futile, in the
> > face of the all-powerful industries and governments that will, if they
> > have to, bring the full force of their abuse of technology to crush
> > creativity by claiming that some notes or lyrics in the song belong to
> > others [i.e., sue these two poor souls into oblivion], so why bother?
> > 
> > Nah!  Maybe I'll stick with the utopian groupthink crowd for a while. 
> > Whatever label you put on your position doesn't seem plausible,
> > especially since the example, Gutenburg Press, was in response to a
> > similar thinking [your position on inevitability] by religious rulers
> > and governments.  History is on our side!  Long live history!  :)
> > Tom
> > 
> 
> You have misinterpreted my position here.  History shows that human nature 
> cannot tolerate a void of rules.  Why?  Because humans are not good at 
> sharing 
> on a moment-to-moment basis.  There must be rules understood before anyone 
> approaches the desirable product.   If you have children, you know what I 
> mean.   
> I don't equate government and industry automatically with being the bad 
> guys; 
> government is necessary in order for there to be order, including the good 
> order that yields liberty.   The greatest innovation in history for liberty 
> and 
> the ability to challenge the government was copyright, transformed from a 
> tool 
> for the Church and British monarchs (see my occasional paper on Cardozo's 
> website) to suppress dissenters into a tool for individuals creative 
> authors in 
> the U.S. to question authority.  It made it possible for us to have an 
> entire 
> class of artists and authors,like yourself, not just those supported by the 
> king.  I fail to see how history is on the side of a free commons.  Name 
> one that 
> lasted or fostered great art in the history of the world.  Regards, Marci 
> Hamiton