Comment Re:"Good way to fight"...? (Score 1) 282
You seem to only defend copyright (and maybe trademark), and I believe this stance is much more defendable
Agreed. I even think trademarks often either go to far, or are granted too easily (eg. Lucas attempting to trademark "Ark of the Covenant" is a Bad Thing).
But what are your main arguments? Incentive to create (produce?) more?
That's a major one.
Right to control what you have created?
To a certain degree. Here is an interesting one: Tom Petty was recently nonplussed with the Republican party's use of one of his song at their conventions. He did not write it as propaganda to support their platform, he did not authorize its use. He sent them a cease and desist letter, and they had to comply.
And at the end of the day, there's one thing I don't want to give up: the ability to share information I possess in my brain or my hard drive, the ability to share and swim in human culture.
This is an extremely vague statement. Publishing someone else's copyrighted work against their will (as Napster facilitates) is simply wrong. Sharing information, ideas, this is not being denied (unless you live in a censorship state).
I believe ideas have never been priced before in history. By their very nature, memes try to survive and prosper alike genes.
Copyright law does nothing to prohibit this. Patents often do however, and I oppose many things about patents. This is off topic for this thread.
If shakespeare came back and desired to completely stop the diffusion and the use of his work, I would say sorry but no
And he could do no such thing, even if he could be resurrected. Once a work goes into the public domain, it's there for good. I don't think anyone is suggesting, or even believes it would be possible to force the return of their work after they had willingly distributed it. I also mentioned earlier that there may be some merit to limiting the ability of corporations to extend copyrights indefinitely past the lifetime of the original author.
Who is making money on copyrights? Small bands? A few big artists? A few very big entreprises?
Life has never been fair. Large institutions will always have the upperhand, with or without IP laws. You should be aware that copyright laws were introduced on behalf of the independent creator.
Me, I say the guys with the lawiers :) Artists make their living through performances,
VERY few artists make their living this way. Forcing all artists to make a living off performance only makes it easier to exploit them by concert promoters, ticket sellers, etc. who will definitely not be displaced by "free distribution". If you create that kind of a bottleneck for revenue, the corporations will only squeeze it that much more tightly.
through their fans, not by controling the flow of information.
As an artist, control of your distribution is your only commodity. Even if you just sell promo T-shirts, having control over their distribution is your revenue. As I mentioned earlier, the advent of printing presses, recording equipment, and now the internet has made art more democratic (i.e., the ability to charge small fees for many copies, as opposed to charging large sums to an elite few). With this new reproduction technology comes piracy. That's why we have copyright laws. People should not be so quick to villify the very laws that are there for their benefit. They are taken for granted and have been maligned to an obscene degree lately.
Who are you in RL? What job do you have?
Well, as a newbie here, I'm not too comfortable being entirely public on Slashdot yet. Suffice it to say I work in both digital and traditional art.
What core beliefs do you hold? Isn't there something about progress? Why would you think scientists take such pride in the free flow of information? How do you think mr Watt managed to imagine his first motor if he didn't have a monetary incentive?
I feel like a broken record now. There is a world of difference between protecting, limiting or charging for the use of information and ideas, and controlling the distribution of an actual implementation or expression. This thread is about Napster, and that only has to do with copyright infringements.
Agreed. I even think trademarks often either go to far, or are granted too easily (eg. Lucas attempting to trademark "Ark of the Covenant" is a Bad Thing).
But what are your main arguments? Incentive to create (produce?) more?
That's a major one.
Right to control what you have created?
To a certain degree. Here is an interesting one: Tom Petty was recently nonplussed with the Republican party's use of one of his song at their conventions. He did not write it as propaganda to support their platform, he did not authorize its use. He sent them a cease and desist letter, and they had to comply.
And at the end of the day, there's one thing I don't want to give up: the ability to share information I possess in my brain or my hard drive, the ability to share and swim in human culture.
This is an extremely vague statement. Publishing someone else's copyrighted work against their will (as Napster facilitates) is simply wrong. Sharing information, ideas, this is not being denied (unless you live in a censorship state).
I believe ideas have never been priced before in history. By their very nature, memes try to survive and prosper alike genes.
Copyright law does nothing to prohibit this. Patents often do however, and I oppose many things about patents. This is off topic for this thread.
If shakespeare came back and desired to completely stop the diffusion and the use of his work, I would say sorry but no
And he could do no such thing, even if he could be resurrected. Once a work goes into the public domain, it's there for good. I don't think anyone is suggesting, or even believes it would be possible to force the return of their work after they had willingly distributed it. I also mentioned earlier that there may be some merit to limiting the ability of corporations to extend copyrights indefinitely past the lifetime of the original author.
Who is making money on copyrights? Small bands? A few big artists? A few very big entreprises?
Life has never been fair. Large institutions will always have the upperhand, with or without IP laws. You should be aware that copyright laws were introduced on behalf of the independent creator.
Me, I say the guys with the lawiers
VERY few artists make their living this way. Forcing all artists to make a living off performance only makes it easier to exploit them by concert promoters, ticket sellers, etc. who will definitely not be displaced by "free distribution". If you create that kind of a bottleneck for revenue, the corporations will only squeeze it that much more tightly.
through their fans, not by controling the flow of information.
As an artist, control of your distribution is your only commodity. Even if you just sell promo T-shirts, having control over their distribution is your revenue. As I mentioned earlier, the advent of printing presses, recording equipment, and now the internet has made art more democratic (i.e., the ability to charge small fees for many copies, as opposed to charging large sums to an elite few). With this new reproduction technology comes piracy. That's why we have copyright laws. People should not be so quick to villify the very laws that are there for their benefit. They are taken for granted and have been maligned to an obscene degree lately.
Who are you in RL? What job do you have?
Well, as a newbie here, I'm not too comfortable being entirely public on Slashdot yet. Suffice it to say I work in both digital and traditional art.
What core beliefs do you hold? Isn't there something about progress? Why would you think scientists take such pride in the free flow of information? How do you think mr Watt managed to imagine his first motor if he didn't have a monetary incentive?
I feel like a broken record now. There is a world of difference between protecting, limiting or charging for the use of information and ideas, and controlling the distribution of an actual implementation or expression. This thread is about Napster, and that only has to do with copyright infringements.
