Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

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

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, tom poe wrote:

> Hi:  I resent your label of socialist!  Then, again, maybe I don't.  It
> makes no difference, I guess, other than you didn't read the words I
> wrote with any comprehension of what was stated.  There is nothing in
> what I wrote to indicate that government had anything to do with Open
> Studios' approach to assisting communities to build and operate
> community-based recording studios.  Funding through community giving is
> the foundation, independent of government assistance.  The revenues,
> when such endeavors are scaled to include large participation within a
> state, are significant.  Any state government would have to applaud such
> additional revenues provided through community-based recording studios. 
> Artists, authors, and musicians have no reliance on receiving government
> support in the Digital Age.  They don't need it, as you illustrated with
> reference to the Public Works of Art Programs of the 1930's.  Of course,
> some outstanding stuff came from socialist? Diego Rivera, I think.  But
> then, he wasn't a product of the programs, was he.
> 
> For the most part, I think also, that local access tv stations are
> moving to self-sustainable business models, which, unfortunately, for
> now, anyway, are invariably locking out the poor, and the
> disadvantaged.  Open Studios makes use of the technology advances, and
> offers opportunities for all local residents, and, of course, relies on
> the business models that accompany our brand new Digital Age! 
> Entrepreneurship is about to turn a corner.  . . . .
> 
> Which reminds me of one of my favorite sayings, which I don't know who
> the author was, "When history turns a corner, all the thinkers fall off
> the caboose."  Hope you don't fall off.  :)
> Tom
> 
> On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 08:08, Hamilton02 AT aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 8/7/2003 3:37:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> > tompoe AT amihost.com writes:
> > 
> > > where the individual no
> > > longer needs a monopoly to earn income from their creativity
> > 
> > This is where we disagree.  As I move farther into your piece, though, I 
> > think we have a fundamental and deeper disagreement.  Your views are, in 
> > a 
> > nutshell, socialist.  Mine are decidedly free market.  I don't see 
> > anything to 
> > applaud when the government becomes the underwriter for art.  The art 
> > that came out 
> > of the WPA was execrable.  MAH
> 

Based on idea what communism *really* is, I have no room for other
conclusion that copyright is pretty close to it. This is easy to see with
respect to logic, contrary to meaningless pro-copyright wording 
experiments.

The way is not that long here: communism is nothing else, but ideal,
absolute monopoly. Copyright is exactly the same on another scope. In
communistic society (meaning classical "crude communism", which turns into
"socialism" in terminology only; its essential features are: state owned
property, which is masked as "common property" + low level of general
productive power of the society) people are equal in terms of property,
because they all have none. Many amazing consequences follow immediately,
but I want to stress one: nobody works for interest there, but for reward.
Free society based on the idea of free trade, not reward. Copyright
eliminates free trade and competition in publishing business by setting up
unnatural monopoly to "reward creator". I am not deepening here in direct
harm to culture caused by said monopolies.

Those using "communism" argument usually exploit some comics like
notions, do not bother to scrutiny essential underlying ideas and real
working mechanisms. Amazingly enough, pro-copyright reasoning goes on in
pretty much the same manner. Nothing real counts, neither history, nor
economics, nor logic, nor nature of arts, but habits only.

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