On Thursday 14 February 2013 09:27:40 James Harkins wrote: > drew Roberts <zotz@...> writes: > > On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:02:31 James Harkins wrote: > > > Returning, for example, to the "repeating a joke" example: it's a straw > > > man, because repeating a joke around the water cooler at work earns me > > > no profit. I'm not cutting into the original comedian's compensation. > > > If I get up on stage and charge admission, that's different. No one > > > should give this kind of counterexample a second thought, but Kinsella > > > does. Yawn. > > > > You do know that copyright law disagrees with you though right? > > > > Jokes, at least in the form of one liners and other short forms, cannot > > get copyright protection. > > A misunderstanding here: I disagree both with copyright in its present form > AND with the libertarian arguments against copyright. I had stated > previously that I am not a fan of copyright, so I don't understand why > you're answering my post as if I were defending copyright. Sorry, perhaps I lost sight of the fact what it was you who stated that earlier. > > I want to put copyright and contracts aside for a minute, and say something > about the ethics. (Law is a reflection of a society's ethics -- an > imperfect reflection, but still a reflection.) > > If you create an intellectual product, and I want to do something with it > -- distribute it, or create a new work based on the original -- common > decency calls for me to *ask permission*. To do it anyway without asking is > rude or disrespectful, maybe even dishonest. To speak to this properly, we need to specify if this is a private, as yet unpublished work or if it is a currently published work. If it is not published, I have no right to do anything with it whatsoever. I am most likely not even aware of its existenace unless you are trying to raise the money you want before you then make it public. If it is published, I do not think that decency calls for me to ask permission. The law may currently require it but we are setting that aside. My own working thoughts on the matter at this point go something like this: If I start to earn more than my going rate somehow making use of your work, I will voluntarily split the extra with you. (Again, not copyright law in play here. Or sya with a work someone has under a Free license.) > > Turning the pronouns around, if I make a bangin' dance track in > SuperCollider, and you email me to say you love it and you want to remix > it, I'd be thrilled. I'll even help you out -- I'll give you stems that I > didn't release publicly. I bet a lot of musicians feel the same. Whereas I prefer to release all of my "sources" up front and under a Free, copyleft license. I want to make it easy for people to get on with it as soon as they may be insrpired. > But if I > hear about your remix after the fact... I might like the remix, but I'll > also feel peeved that you just appropriated my work without so much as a > "good morning." Depending on how you're releasing it, my reaction may range > between mildly irritated and furious, the latter especially if I release > with a CC-BY-SA and you don't share alike. If you use BY-SA, you can be sure I will be sharing alike. That is my preferred license for my lyrics and such. (With no copyright law in the world, you would just find my work.) > > This is my #1 beef with the libertarian point of view. Libertarians seem to > be saying that the rude bastard is fully justified in being a rude bastard, > AND that the law should protect his rude bastard-ness. See, I don't think we should have a criminal law to stop people being simply rude. We can have social costs, sure. But criminal costs? > And the original > author, who was rudely bastardized? Tough. They have declared, more or less > a priori, that material possession trumps all other considerations. See, no. If his bok say is sitting on lined paper that he wrote it on in a drawer beside his bed, they have no right to it whatsoever. And that means even if they break in and take possession of it. > Since > the intellectual product is not a material possession, the author has no > recourse. Well, no, They stole the only copy of work. There is recourse. > Further, she SHOULD have no recourse because any recourse is an > "invasion" of the rude bastard's property. Can you spell it out exactly? > > Thus we have an ethic that celebrates dishonorable behavior as an > expression of the ideal of free use of one's material resources,] So the folks who wrote West Side Story did something dishonourable? If not, what exactly are you saying? (Remember we still have copyrights and contracts set aside, although I am not sure we need to leave contracts aside.) > and > disempowers someone who has done honest, hard work. I choose not to endorse > this ethic, Unless we craft a law that forces someone to publish before they are paid for their labour, how do we disempower those who do honest, hard work? And just to be clear, honest, hard work does not deserve a guuantee of being paid for by others. If, for instance, I go out onto a deserted public beach and spend a week working hard in the hot sun digging a football sized hole three feet deep, I may indeed have done honest work. It may have been hard work too. Who should I demand pay me for that honest and hard work? It is only if I set out to work at the behest of another and for an agreed upon rate that I can reasonably demand payment from that person for the act of working on what hey asked me to work on. If I set out to work for myself on my own initiative and make something that I like, I have my own reward. I have what I made. If someone gets wind that I have this and they wnat it, they can buy it from me at an agreed upon price. > and I'm afraid that the discussion cannot progress as long as > the primacy of material possession is non-negotiable. > > One of my problems with copyright is that the companies that enforce > copyright have no incentive to grant permission for derivative works. So, > either nobody makes derivative works (no fun) or people don't ask > permission, which is ethically dodgy. That's one reason why I don't enforce > copyright on my own works, but I do license as CC-BY-SA. (I used to add NC > "non-commercial" to that, but realized that it doesn't bother me if my work > is used in a project that is sold for money *as long as* it is also > share-alike, i.e., permitting derivative works.) > > So, a question on my mind is, what mechanisms could the law use to > discourage people from being jerks and copying without asking? Wait. From the license you already use (and so do I by the way) you already give an indication that asking is not needed. > I don't have > an answer, but it seems to me that it's a more productive line of thought > than paranoid language of "invasion" and even, at one point, truly silly > speculation about the death penalty for copyright violators. I fail to see > how any of that furthers the discussion in any way, It is simply to point out that even the current way out laws on the books do not satisfy those who demand copyright work in the way they insist to protect their way outdated business models. > and I intend to ignore > those portions of Louigi and Drew's future posts that indulge in such (and > I hope others follow suit). No need to ignore me if you really want to first come to an understanding and then to explore where we really agree and where we really disagree. Sometimes, these things take a bit of back and forth. > > hjh all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
