Hi Fred,
Can I quote you?
Better yet (by far), could you just paste that into the comments at
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/08/26/music-industry-on-culture-killing-spree/
?
I was composing a response, but I kept wanting to quote what you
wrote, and it would be so much more powerful coming from you directly
instead of me writing, "as Fred says..."
Regardless, thanks for your clear articulation.
--Nina
On Sep 3, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Fred Benenson wrote:
The basic rebuttal to this argument that I usually offer is that
copyright was designed as a balance between private and public
interests.
By granting a limited monopoly (what the constitution says) over the
exclusive rights to a work, we are able to motivate creators to
create in the first place. But the public should get something in
return (this is how democratic government treats monopolies they
oblige) and that should be the public domain. This means that
copyright terms should be limited.
Your commenter seems to think that they shouldn't be. So that's a
place to start.
If they believe that copyright terms should be limited, the question
is to what extent. Copyright was originally designed for 14 years of
restriction, plus another 14 if renewed, but now extends 70 years
after the author's death. If you acknowledge that a line needs to be
drawn, then you must also acknowledge that it should be sensible and
speak to the original balance of copyright. In a lot of people's
opinions (esp. those on this list) that line should be much more
limited.
Your commenter might say that real estate works in the same way --
investment in a building should be able to return for future
generations. There are many things wrong with this analogy beginning
with the fact that it is based on a category mistake. That is,
intellectual creations and physical property are not of the same
"thing" or "category." Intellectual works are controlled using
artificial laws and rules such as copyright, whereas physical
property is governed by immutable laws of reality (such as the
current inability to duplicate objects at no cost infinitely.)
I hope that helps.
Best,
Fred
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Nina Paley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm engaged in argument with a clueless but possibly educable reader
at
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/08/26/music-industry-on-culture-killing-spree/
Inevitably, after I explained how copyright has been changed
retroactively, and works that should have entered the Public Domain
remain privatized, I got this:
"# iggy Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am e
ok. one more question. if warner bros. wants to use part of your
film in "batman 23″ and "batman 23″ goes on to make 300
trillion dollars, do you or your heirs want any part of those
profits? or are you just glad that millions of people will have seen
a part of it? what rights do you have in your film and do you put
any monetary value on those rights?
(don't flip out over the example of commingling your film with a
studio movie. it's just for arguments sake)."
I'm sure many of you have been engaged in arguments that equate
creative work made 80 years ago with work made yesterday. This is of
course Apples and Oranges (although I personally feel dissemination
of my work is more important than monetization, I also believe a
reformed copyright with time limits would benefit artists like me.
But the completely corrupt copyright mess we have now is bad for
artists and culture).
How do you usually explain these finer points of copyright? Anyone
want to help educate those in need by commenting in the thread at
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/08/26/music-industry-on-culture-killing-spree/
?
Thanks,
--Nina
* * * * * * * * *
Nina Paley
Animator/Illustrator/Cartoonist
http://www.ninapaley.com
http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
