Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[mwandha michael <mwamichael AT yahoo.com>]

Dear friends,

thank you for the work .

and I get all these news but I do not understand fully what you want me to do .

God bless you .

yours

Michael - in Jinja ,Uganda .

community_studios-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

Send Community_studios mailing list submissions to
community_studios AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/community_studios
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
community_studios-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
community_studios-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Community_studios digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: copyright confusion comment (tom poe)
2. Re: Re: copyright confusion comment (Anatoly Volynets)
3. Re: copyright confusion comment (tom poe)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: 06 Aug 2003 11:01:11 -0700
From: tom poe
Subject: [Community_studios] Re: copyright confusion comment
To: Hamilton02 AT aol.com
Cc: Community Studios
Message-ID: <1060192874.14908.41.camel AT localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain

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



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anatoly Volynets
Subject: Re: [Community_studios] Re: copyright confusion comment
To: tom poe
Cc: Hamilton02 AT aol.com, Community Studios

Message-ID:

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

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

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: 06 Aug 2003 18:01:19 -0700
From: tom poe
Subject: [Community_studios] Re: copyright confusion comment
To: Hamilton02 AT aol.com
Cc: Community Studios
Message-ID: <1060218082.17192.16.camel AT localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain

Marci! Goodness!

Olu, a poor songwriter from Accra, Ghana, West Africa, will be most
disappointed to learn of your inevitability proclamation.
http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/olu.html

He, and an equally poor songwriter from Reno, Nevada, USA, were, even in
their economically stressed condition, able to take advantage of the
computer, and collaborate to create a song, Miles Upon Miles Away:
http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/music/miles.ogg

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

On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 11:22, Hamilton02 AT aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/6/2003 1:58:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> tompoe AT amihost.com writes:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> I completely disagree with you here. The technology made changes in the
> world, but it did not trump law or morals. Over time, law and morals were
> attached to it, just like the Web. The utopian groupthink that clings to the notion
> of a free commons is already foundering in the face of the industries and
> governments that are bringing rules and order to the web. It is inevitable. MAH



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Community_studios mailing list
Community_studios AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/community_studios


End of Community_studios Digest, Vol 7, Issue 6
***********************************************

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software