Nina, Please feel free to use whatever you'd like of my reply in whatever capacity -- don't worry about attribution.
F 2008/9/3 Nina Paley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
