Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
open source/anti copyright. ie either or or both.
WTF?? What does this even mean?
I think you're tarring everyone with the same brush there. it can't be permission if no one asks you in the first place.
I'm not tarring anyone, I'm speaking technically. Copyright is about restricting re-usage as a default position. Open source, on the other hand, is about granting permission for re-use as the default position.
Clear now?
-
What's come out of this discussion for me is that a blanket copyright law that does not discriminate between different forms of creative work; or how they function in the market, and, appears to work in favour of copyright holders who are not the originators (ie: publishers, distributors) is not the best model.
The pov's of both robbery and mark make sense to me and I don't see why a decent law can't embrace both. I come from a visual arts perspective - seems ok to me to use bits of other works to build new ones, it's always been part of the process - it's wholesale rip-offs of complete, or altered only in v. small ways, artworks and claiming originality that really has to be protected against. I think it's different for songwriters. They put in all the same sort of creative effort, yet lose control of their work and financial recompense too easily, because they have so little protection.
What I'm picking up most in robbery's posts is the pain of the creative artist who's getting the message from society that they love his work, but it's ok to have it for free because ,hey, he should just get a haircut and a real job and somehow still find the spirit to carry on creating stuff. And if he can't, it doesn't matter because postmodern theory has incinerated the role of artist & writer as unique individuals and replaced us with the notion that it's all endless regurgitation & tinkering with what's gone before. Therefore nothing special and anyone can do it. I don't, of course, believe that.
-
I'm given to understand it was a marketing gimmick.
Yes and no, it was a marketing tool and from Radiohead's POV a seriously successful one but it was also an attempt to explore alternatives and a variety of other acts have taken up the challenge, not least of whom was Brian Eno and David Byrne, which I covered here.
It wasn't a a dead end or just a marketing gimmick.
-
open source/anti copyright. ie either or or both.
WTF?? What does this even mean?it means if you are one of the open source guys, or an anti copyright guy, or an open source and anti copyright guy then cam you answer the question. the '/' sign used to denote either or or both.
and by anti copyright guy I mean those who on this thread have been speaking for the negative team, so there's probably a little bit of tarring with the same brush on my side there but I'm generally interested in how the income flow works for you guys if you're making intellectual property but feel you want to give the rights of it away. ie an earnest question to another group of IP makers who have found a different model that suits them.
is that all clear now.? if you read it with your happy head voice it'll sound quite pleasant.
-
Quite clear, thanks, And if you say it without your sarcasty voice, it's even more pleasant.
BTW it's not about giving away the rights - it's about allowing use. Really, very different.
-
What I'm picking up most in robbery's posts is the pain of the creative artist who's getting the message from society that they love his work, but it's ok to have it for free because ,hey, he should just get a haircut and a real job
figuratively speaking of course kerry.
my points are real but my pain isn't. I got a hair cut and a real job ages ago, probably for the reasons you outlined, and didn't do it bitterly, as I still get to do my creative thing too, but in order to have a valid opposition argument to the prevailing 'everything is cool' one you have to get into the role, so to speak.I totally get the 'open source' guys argument too and I'd happily live in a world where those rules were applied to everyone equally, is that socialism via the above 2 cows examples. I thought we were supposed to be a socialist country here anyway?
The fact of the matter is we don't live in that world (yet?), commercialism is about self, the century of self if you will (great doco available on that concept) not saying this is a good way for us to be, just observing that that is the way it is.
no one has offered a real explanation as to why rules for intellectual property are applied differently than for any other kind of property except to argue that intellectual property is infact not property at all, even though it has the word property in the phrase (and I was very jealous that simon got there first with that observation).and for the person who said that my ideas were silly, you're probably right, what worthy input would the "slave" (sorry to use simon's loaded analogy again :)) have to have on his situation. That whole argument is much better left to people not connected to it, avoiding any input from those affected by it. (massa, :)) (smilie head voice)
-
And if you say it without your sarcasty voice,
there are no sarcastic notations before any of my comments.
its how you read em mark,it's not about giving away the rights - it's about allowing use. Really, very different
so if you allow use you have control, so following that you're in favour of infinite term rights?
how can you allow something if you don't have control over it?
you want to be allowed use without asking?
isn't that like not having any rights?
-
since no one else is biting
OPEN SOURCE
you have two cows,
you do substantial work on them and give both of them away,
no one knows what happens to you (you probably starve or live in your mum's basement)MUSICIAN/COMPOSER
You make two cows.
you allow access to the milk on an honesty system
no one asks you if they can have some milk, no one pays,
you get a hair cut and a day job
someone tries to sell you some milk from your own cow. -
robbery - I have missed the last few comments but I have not seen *anyone* on this list who is "anti-copyright".
Honestly, your misrepresentation of what is being discussed is getting tiresome. You are putting up strawmen, constantly.
Just because you fail to comprehend different business models in the arts and software doesn't mean they don't exist.
What has been discussed, usually intelligently, is:
the length of term; what Copyright actually means; enforcement issues and - what impact the these points could have on artists, writers, publics' right to privacy *and* occiassionally software developers (regardless of whether their code is open source). -
you do substantial work on them and give both of them away,
no one knows what happens to you (you probably starve or live in your mum's basement)Oh, I see. A troll.
-
Oh, I see. A troll.
humourless?
come on don, you can do better than that.
do a musician gag,
its creative I know, but I think you've got it in you,but I have not seen *anyone* on this list who is "anti-copyright".
ok, pro reduced copyright periods, maybe we're not reading the same comments but there's a definite slant toward creatives have too many rights as it is type thing. But I'm sure you knew what I meant and who I was referring to with my comment, you're just choosing to bog down the convo in semantics, which is a clever debating ploy in itself, I acknowledge..
-
is this you
in which case you'll be able to clearly and informatively tell me all about open source type things and how it all works, one creative to another, and why you've found it a good model to work under.
I did ask nicely above.ps the mums basement gag works just as well on musicians.
-
-
is this you
http://nzoss.org.nz - the give away is using my real name and the little blue circle image under my little picture.
-
is this you mark
Thank the gods, no. He pops up a lot when ego-surfing. Bloody awful stuff.
no wait this
Nope, although he's a new one to me. A lot closer to my erstwhile home, as I grew up in Fitzroy, just around the corner from my namesake, from memory. But I left there 35 years ago.
To save you time, I'm not the film stuntman out of Auckland, or the guy who runs the polo school. Nor the Man from Atlantis, though I had to suffer the jokes at school.
You'll find me at http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/
impressive page.
You have very low expectations, then.
I nicked one of your photos for a cd cover, is that cool? :)
Well, if you had to steal it, how could it be cool? I suggest you approach the copyright owner and ask him for permission.
is that your music under your page?
No, no, I do stuff with an ongoing melody. But I'm pleased he put an off switch on there.
-
ps the mums basement gag works just as well on musicians.
I'd dispute that, as all the musicians I know have a sense of humour.
-
__Again with the lack of comprehension. "open source" does not equal "anti-copyright".__
ok
open source/anti copyright. ie either or or both.Open source relies on copyright, it simply takes a different approach to it.
That said, I'm dubious about comparisons with other creative arts, such as music, in that context. OSS works because you can incorporate the work of similarly-interested others in your own work. There's some of that in making music, but the scale of benefit isn't there.
And Rob, please don't wind people up. It is quite possible to have a sensible discussion without doing so.
-
I'd dispute that, as all the musicians I know have a sense of humour.
They're terrible flatmates though. Never have any money.
-
so if you allow use you have control, so following that you're in favour of infinite term rights?
Nope. We established that somewhere round page 2 of the thread. Keep up.
how can you allow something if you don't have control over it?
Easy. You just do it. You lose no value from it being re-used, it's already served the purpose you developed it for. If it's software, you may get repaid by someone else improving it with a new idea. Under most open source licences, the user is required to return any changes to the project, so others can use them or so the base software can be improved. Some licences (like BSD) don't require this.
Creative Commons is good for this, as it allows the creator to specify what sort of licence they are offering to a fine granularity, without having to involve lawyers to create it from scratch.
you want to be allowed use without asking?
Yep, unless it's for commercial purposes, in which case I'd approach it differently. If I sampled a piece of your song and used it in one of mine, I wouldn't worry. But I then wanted to perform that song or make it available for money, I'd seek your permission and work out a deal that enabled me to do just that.
isn't that like not having any rights?
No, it's not.
-
They're terrible flatmates though. Never have any money.
And they steal your girlfriends - <elvis> "Uh huh, baby, I play the guitar" </elvis>is such a crap pick up line (but it always seemd to work for them, the bastards)
-
And they steal your girlfriends
It's not stealing, it's...
..oh wait, never mind
:) -
Uh, Robin, you surely wouldn't be going to open source your...
...oh, wait, never mind:-D
-
to the open source anti copyright guys, I'm interested in your income structure, how do you earn a living for stuff you give away? serious question asked sincerely.
I do it by being good at what I do (toot toot ;). I release software, and people come to me to make them custom versions. They can do it with an in-house team if they want, but I can do it faster and cheaper.
While not income, I also get people making their own additions to it, which is, I guess, a twist on the barter system.
A nice effect is that if a company pays for something, say an extra feature, everybody else using the software gets that for free.
A curious coincidence, all the software I have a significant hand in is to deal with the performance or distribution of music.
This is just me though, there are plenty of other models.
As for infinite terms, I'm against them because they reduce the creative pool that other people can build on. If you have a look at one of the links I posted the other day, you'll also note that something like 14 years has been shown to be most efficient for the economy.
So, just because it's (potentially) a little bit better for me, it's to the detriment of the rest of the world. And, as other things in the world affect me, it's to my detriment also.
A comment on your 'basement' jibe: myth
-
But I then wanted to perform that song or make it available for money, I'd seek your permission and work out a deal that enabled me to do just that.
Uhh..in other words pretty much how music publishing works now....
-
No, how it works now is that I'd approach the copyright holder, which is probably not you.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.