Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:05:01 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, "Victor R. Cardona" <vcardona@home.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman stalls again Message-ID: <15020.33581.202339.895997@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010311235053.00e26140@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010311230800.00e19bd0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311193801.0441d3c0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306122244.04477f00@localhost> <20010305200017.D80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305123951.04604b20@localhost> <20010305205030.G80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305125259.00cfdae0@localhost> <20010305142108.A17269@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306011342.045fb360@localhost> <20010306081025.A22143@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306092612.00b79f00@localhost> <20010306174618.N32515@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311235053.00e26140@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> types: > At 11:48 PM 3/11/2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > >If you believe that, then you've already made up your mind, and > >discussing the issue is pointless. Creators publishing is the > >baby. > If you try to construe what I said that way you'll miss the point I > was trying to make. The notion of conferring rights on creators of > content is vitally important, since without it there's no incentive > for them to publish other than vanity. Correct. My point is that the conferred rights do *not* have to be the copyright system. > >Right. Copyright *allows* the author to be compensated. It isn't the > >compensation. Nor does it allow the author to demand compensation for > >mere use. > Not so. For all uses except for "fair use," it does. Actually, the things copyright holders have the right to demand compensation for are listed in the US copyright code, chapter 1, section 106. "Fair use" is a list of exceptions those rights. They don't have the right to demand compensation for anything not listed in that section, whether it's fair use or not. > >Any mechanism that allows the author to be compensated if they publish > >will serve the same purpose. If you want, read "make available for the > >public to use" for "publish"; it amounts to the same thing. If the > >public can't get to the work, there's no way they can do something > >that copyright allows the author to demand compensation for. > You don't have to release your work to the general public. You can > license it privately to a small number of individuals if you'd like. In which case it doesn't need to have a copyright attached at all; the license is more than sufficient. In fact, that's one of the methods programmers use to earn money without needing copyright protection. But the point of copyright is to encourage the authors to release their work to the general public, not to a small set of licensees. > >> Copyright applies to far more than just publishing. For example, it > >> also applies to public performance for profit, etc. > >This is a bit vague. A public performance itself isn't > >copyrightable. > Sure it is. And the author of the work that's performed is entitled > to compensation too. For something to be copyrightable, it must be fixed (Chapter 1, Section 102, paragraph a of the US Copyright code). A performance isn't fixed, and hence not copyrightable. Recordings of it are fixed, and hence copyrightable. I already dealt with the authors of performed works being entitled to compensation. > >> I think that unbridled theft of copyrighted material is shameful too. > >So do I. It's clearly illegal and immoral. However, it is *not* > >causing a major economic dislocation, > It is, actually. It's impacting the sales of albums and especially > those of "singles." "Impacting sales" is a *long* way from "causing a major economic dislocation". Get back to me record companies start folding because of it. > >wherease the publishers mucking > >with fair use and related rights is threatening an entire profession. > Which one? Librarians. I posted a URL to the librarians take on this already. > >> As I said near the beginning of this thread, we need to broker a new > >> peace -- not instigate or escalate a war. > >I agree. In particular, I think that the public would be better served > >by a peace that used some other mechanism to allow artists to be > >compensated for publishing. > What would you propose? Something like ASCAP? From whom would it collect > funds? I don't really have a good idea. Of course, it's clear from the state of the world that the current system isn't a good idea, either. Stallman proposed a tax system at one point, but it's probably not an improvement. There have been experiments with voluntary contributions, but I don't think those have worked very well. Possibly the concept of copyright can be made to work, but I suspect it will take a nearly complete reworking. The real goal is to fix things so that the publishers attempts to enforce copyright technologically doesn't take away the publics fair use rights or the rights of creators who don't happen to be major publishers. Fair use allows free copying for a small set of purposes, and creators have the right to copy anything they please. If you have the ability to do both of those things, you pretty much have the ability to do make copies as you please. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15020.33581.202339.895997>