Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Similarly, if someone actively STEALS my work, then you are correct. If, OTOH, I have a E.U.L.A. with a purchaser that they are free two make two backup copies and show my work to groups of up to a dozen people at a time, THAT takes precedent over standard copyright.
Copyright and licensing are two separate things. Copyright gives you the "right" to license your product how you see fit whether you want to charge for it, give it away or somewhere in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
If 5 million people jump off a cliff, does that make it legal and right?
If they making that decision on their own certainly.
What a waste. Just saw Aaron speaking on PBS (from 2012), about standing up to Congress. A fine mind, now gone. After reading some of Aaron's writings and hearing him speak, I am shocked that he gave up.
Thanks, Aaron you were quite a young man. You were
so right, knowledge should be shared.
Sure, maybe his way was not always too hot; but look at all the pioneers before him. Wish he could have had the chance to explain the why.
Copyright and licensing are two separate things. Copyright gives you the "right" to license your product how you see fit whether you want to charge for it, give it away or somewhere in between...
I think the founding fathers had something to say about "rights". Too bad no one remembers or cares to remember.
re the 5 million, I'll rephrase it. If 5 million people are entranced enough to believe they can fly off a cliff, does that negate the law of gravity?
Many years ago I experienced another brilliant mind do something similar to what A.S. did. I've never forgotten.
One of the most powerful eulogies might have come from the so-called inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee. A short poem attributed to Berners-Lee hit the top of one Reddit comment thread two days ago. It reads:
“Aaron is dead.
Wanderers in this crazy world,
we have lost a mentor, a wise elder.
Hackers for right, we are one down,
we have lost one of our own.
Nurtures, careers, listeners, feeders,
parents all,
we have lost a child.
Let us all weep.”
Last edited by harry chickpea; 01-14-2013 at 10:43 PM..
The followers of Ayn Rand talk of business people "going Galt" and refusing to contribute to those who oppress them. People like A.S. HAVE to think out of the box by their very nature, HAVE to be willing to challenge restrictive rules and the status quo. They also have to be allowed a certain amount of freedom if we, as a society, are going to grow by their insights.
I’m not sure that Ayn Rand is the best example to use. Surely as an author she was deeply concerned over intellectual ownership of creative works. She didn’t give away her books for free.
There are multiple issues here, and one is about the rights of corporations claiming in perpetuity the rights of creators in their lifetimes. I’m a composer, and, like many artists, writers, scholars, etc., I rely on royalties for income. On the other hand, as an artist I resent copyrights being extended in or near perpetuity to protect the profits of a company like Disney. I think works should enter the public domain a short time after the creator’s death.
Reform is necessary, but vigilantism is not the answer.
re the 5 million, I'll rephrase it. If 5 million people are entranced enough to believe they can fly off a cliff, does that negate the law of gravity?
I think your attempt to compare is going off the rails here Harry, if 5 million people stole the articles does it make it right? We can pointlessly go round and round with this...
Harry I'm not disagreeing with your position entirely, my point here is copyright and patent law are part of the foundations for our capitalistic society if not the largest part. The abuses need to be stopped and the laws modernized to address many things but the fundamental intentions of those laws are important.
I think works should enter the public domain a short time after the creator’s death.
I know they do that now but the time after death is so long it doesn't effect the value of that work during the author's lifetime. If you shorten that your work as composer will be devalued especially as you get older, how much are you going to sell your work for if you get cancer?
What we need is a strict time limit like they do for patents that follows the transfer of the copyright.
I recognize that creators - and those who support the efforts of creators - need recompense if we are to encourage such activities. As a society, the patronage system of old was perhaps even more fair than what exists today. An artist could focus upon his art and be less concerned with the "needs" of modern life.
Capitalism is a method by which those with the most drive and talent and ability to fend off others can succeed beyond all expectations. As long as the benefit to society is equal to or greater than the loss, we all cheer that on. It is a noble ideal.
One has to go to the very core of capitalism to see its flaws. The elephant in that room is obvious once you ignore the extreme claims of its keepers.
What capitalism has turned to within the U.S., and eventually will always turn to, is a system where those with the most drive and talent and ability to fend off others IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR dominate. Money + power = domination. Those who understand money and power and how to change laws become the rulers. Creators have talents that are often from a completely different skill set than that. To the extent that they ally themselves with financial geniuses, they succeed. To the extent they don't, their ideas are stolen, their works plagiarized, and their reputations sullied. I could give pages of examples.
Copyright and patent have now been almost entirely given over to those who can effectively distribute and those who have pockets deep enough to promote. The flow of rewards then largely go to those distributors and promoters, with pittances going to many creators. The system is toxic. The enforcement of the rules of the system is even more toxic.
There will never be a perfect system or perfect answer, but we can certainly do far better than this. If the obscene riches of a few distributors and promoters are reduced to simply extreme riches, there is no harm to society, and in fact it is stimulated. Promoters do not create. Distributors do not create. They are workmen. They may be skilled, but they are workmen and not creators.
Coalman: "if 5 million people stole the articles does it make it right? " You confuse morality and law. In a perfect world, laws are based upon morality. This is not a perfect world, and laws are made to enforce the status quo and keep those who are in power secure in their positions. If Disney stole the public commons from the public, as it did by enticing a perverted Congress to pass a law extending copyright, and 5 million people draw unauthorized pictures of Mickey Mouse in a rat trap, their actions may be a "crime" but the morality of activity sides with the people.
In a sense, what this is all about is the inevitable drive by those in power to exert more power, until the world ends up in the same type of absolute monarchy that existed in Siam and other countries, where the whim of a king meant execution without appeal. That is the end game of this version of capitalism. At some point, one of the extreme power seekers will simply grab control at the top of the system. The transitions are subtle, and those who have any benefit from the status quo all along the way will want to support it and the laws, even though that support will eventually kill them or imprison them. Remember how easily Stalin gained complete control in a system that was purported to give equality to the masses. Do you think wresting control out of a system that already is structured upon power is going to be harder?
There HAS to be resistance to extremes of power if there is going to be any equality at all. By the very nature of resistance, it involves breaking "laws". In a few instances, the highhandedness of those in power exposes itself in a fashion that cannot be ignored. The death of a brilliant creator through the actions of intimidation and the threat of "cruel and unusual punishment" is one of those times.
There is a petition to get the person responsible for those extreme charges removed from office. That is only a start and side-issue. The real issue is that this country needs radical reform of intellectual rights laws and our Congress is no more capable of handling that weighty subject than first-graders fighting over a box of crayons.
I know they do that now but the time after death is so long it doesn't effect the value of that work during the author's lifetime. If you shorten that your work as composer will be devalued especially as you get older, how much are you going to sell your work for if you get cancer?
What we need is a strict time limit like they do for patents that follows the transfer of the copyright.
Composers and other writers don’t “sell” their work, unless it’s a work-for-hire, like a soundtrack to a movie. We get royalties, i.e., licensing fees per performance. As it happens I’m in negotiations now for the LA premiere of a show I wrote a couple of years ago. The producers agreed to pay me $100 per performance. Not a ton of money, but it’ll help pay my rent while I’m writing my new piece.
The LA theater doesn’t have the right to record the music or sell hard copies of the score. If they move the production to a larger theater with more seats, the royalty will be adjusted to reflect that.
If I died next week, the royalty would go to my “estate” and benefit my heirs. Nothing in copyright law affects “value,” merely the length of time an estate can collect royalties (and control use). Value is determined by the popularity of the show (how often it’s performed and how many tickets it sells) and the royalties it generates. Some shows that are performed all the time (like Oklahoma!) are extremely valuable. Most are practically worthless because they don’t generate any royalties, but it has nothing to do with the copyright.
None of this is problematic or controversial. The real issue is, literally, Mickey Mouse. The original films were set to enter the Public Domain and it created a huge problem for Disney because Mickey Mouse is now a brand rather than a film or a character. They’re the ones who really pushed to have the law changed, which I do think inhibits creativity.
It should also be remembered that Aaron Swartz made millions selling his own intellectual property. His notions of what should be free were selective and situational. Intellectual property and plagiarism are the two great issues of the Information Age. Our current laws are inadequate and Swartz’s potential prison term was excessive, but we need to engage in a calm and rational discussion and reform.
We also need to accept that companies like Disney, Fox and Sony are not going to give away free money (royalties on decades-old work in perpetuity) with a fight. They’re going to hire the best lawyers and lobbyists they can find. However, breaking into buildings is not an effective way to generate public sympathy and grassroots support.
...and Swartz’s potential prison term was excessive,
I would imagine the big factor in the possible sentence was the extraordinary value of what he stole. Even if you were to assign a very small value of $1 per article that's still 5 million dollars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
