I've copywritten many a piece, and it saved my ass bigtime in one instance when material of mine was wholly ripped off and used on a Web site -- for profit -- $54,000's worth as it turned out.
Because I had a copyright, the thief incurred a risk of much larger penalties than he would have faced otherwise -- civil law allows for multiples of the profits as a proscribed penalty. That big penalty, once he finally grasped what risk he faced, forced him to reconsider his position in a three year long lawsuit, and he's now asking for an out of court settlement. Without that copyright "clout," my civil suit against the guy would have much less of a penalty being possibly exacted against him, and he would have held out much longer before coming to the settlement table. Because of this experience, I'm grateful for the copyright laws. That said: here's a suggestion to all artists: give it all away for free until you have a following. If you can't get a following, then you don't have what the market wants, so keep your day job. If you do get a following, have those folks sign up to an opt-in list that gets them the privilege of being the first to get your fresh new stuff for a price. Yes, they can then give your new stuff away after purchase, but they will want your stuff fresh-as-possible, so much that, if they have the bucks, they'll buy it when it comes hot off the griddle just to get their fix. Those that can wait, will get your stuff from the buyers down the line when those buyers post your stuff on the Web. See? If one really has chops, there will be a paying audience who want that next blast from you NOW. And this can be done direct -- P2P -- with no agents or broadcasters or media vampires involved. The artist sells to his core audience, and the rest of the world gets it for free -- which is advertising for the next roll out of stuff. Providing your stuff for free in a degraded form (smaller file size) will give everyone a taste, and invite them to purchase the "full pleasure." E.g., Put your stuff on youtube.com and cuz it's so crappy a display, folks will pay for the bigger files with the visual and audio details that youtube.com crunches out of existence. The opt-in list will grow. Yes, this means an artist must continually put out more, but that's what any artist would do for funzies if he/she is a true artist, right? Then, if one really has a following, a concert will be sold out, a gallery's display will be well visited, etc. Now, I do have a problem with the heirs of material. John Wayne's family is still making healthy buckzoids from licensing his image, and I cannot find myself wanting that to stop -- I have kids that I want to leave my creations to, ya see? So, the Duke's family have a legitimate gripe if someone is diluting the value of his image by over-use which will decrease how much is paid by a commercial interest in the material. I think that if anyone makes more than a few bucks off my stuff, they should pay a royalty at least. Maybe as a compromise, we could allow general use of all material, but if money is being made, then the copyright laws click in. If people get tired of seeing John Wayne in youtube vids, then so be it. John Wayne's family needs to make hay while the sun shines. On the other hand, I don't create anything, and I'm thieving from God, so who am I to try to control how the stuff that flows through me is used by God in the "other" nervous systems out there? Can't justify it on my good days, but when I finally get that lawsuit cleared up, I'll be sure to cash the check instead of, you know, giving to one of "God's charities." Sigh....I don't have clarity about all this. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great article, great protest. > > This pandering to the copyright barons is also the > thing that has crippled Windows Vista, because > Microsoft capitulated to it. From what I hear, the > moment you launch any of its multimedia utilities, > the memory requirements of the operating system > double, and sometimes triple if you're trying to > play HD. I read one review/test of Vista in which > the tester was unable to run more than two other > programs (for example, Microsoft Word and Outlook) > in 2 Mb of memory (Microsoft's claimed minimum > memory requirement for Vista) when the OS went > into its "protect Microsoft from copyright > infringement suits" mode. They have effectively > crippled their OS and passed the cost of the > crippling (in the form of more memory being > required) by giving in to the lawyers. > > When are the copyright owners going to learn that > they're dealing with a "frontier" situation, and > outlaws, and that heavy-handed attempts to intimidate > the outlaws Just Aren't Going To Work? The outlaws > understand the tech, and the entertainment industry > lawyers do not. The outlaws are going to win every > time, because they've got Righteous Indignation on > their side. That and being 17 and having no assets > that can be effectively seized. :-) > > My favorite attempt-at-copy-protection story is the > short-lived scheme used by Sony corp. on its CDs. > They spent several million bucks coming up with a > copy-protection algorhythm that would prevent users > from copying their CDs. The only trouble with it > was that it actually *crashed* the users' computers > when they tried to play the CDs on them. Big no-no, > one that put the Righteous Indignation reaction into > hyperdrive. Within a week, someone had figured out > that the multi-million-dollar copy protection scheme > could be defeated using a 49-cent Magic Marker pen. > Simply use it to paint over the outside edge of the > CD, and it played (and copied) just fine on any > computer. No more crashes, no more copy protection. > Sony abandoned the scheme. > > That's the way that all such copy protection schemes > are going to be dealt with in the future. The hackers > are smarter than the people creating the protection > devices, and they're more motivated. The employees > of the entertainment industry companies who invent > these things are rewarded with (and thus motivated > by) an industry-standard salary and a Dilbert cube > that they can't even put up any of their photos of > Elle Macpherson in. The hackers are motivated by > Righteous Indignation, which doesn't pay as well in > dollars, but pays off Big-Time in terms of satis- > faction and peer approval. :-) > > Having worked on the peripheries of the music and > film industry at one point in my life, I have to > admit that I don't have a lot of compassion for the > companies who are screaming about being ripped off > by pirates. They've been Long John Silver to their > artists for decades now, ripping off the very people > who create their product every way they can possibly > imagine. And now the karma has come home to roost. > And about bloody time, in my opinion. I've known > musicians who sold over a million dollars worth of > product and who got a *bill* from their record > companies for the album. The smarmy lawyers of the > record companies had found a way to pass all of > *their* expenses onto the band, and make them pay > the company for the privilege of having made money > for them. Same with some small films. > > So do I feel bad about these entertainment industry > remoras losing a few bucks from pirates who take > advantage of this authorization code being spread > around on the Internet? I do not. When they start > treating the "talent" that pays for their Porsches > with a little more respect, I'll have more respect > for them. Until then, I'm siding with the pirates. > Ho ho ho, pass the bottle of rum, and plop that > HD copy of Pirates Of The Caribbean At World's > End into that Linux machine. Party time. :-) > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "vajradhatu108" <vajranatha@> > wrote: > > > > 09 F9: A Simple Way to Stand Up Against the Latest Assault on > Digital Rights > > By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet > > Posted on May 22, 2007 > > > > I have a number, and therefore I am a free person. That's the message > > more than a million protesters across the Internet have been > > broadcasting throughout the month of May as they publish "09 F9 11 02 > > 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0," the 128-bit number familiarly > > known as 09 F9. Why would so many people create MySpace accounts using > > this number, devote a Wikipedia entry to it, post it thousands of > > times on news-finding site Digg, share pictures of it on photo site > > Flickr, and emblazon it on T-shirts? > > > > They're doing it to protest kids being threatened with jail by > > entertainment companies. They're doing it to protest bad art, bad > > business, and bad uses of good technology. They're doing it because > > they want to watch Spider-Man 3 on their Linux machines. > > > > In case you don't know, 09 F9 is part of a key that unlocks the > > encryption codes on HD-DVD and Blu-ray DVDs. Only a handful of DVD > > players are authorized to play these discs, and if you don't own one > > of them, you can't watch Spidey in high definition -- even if you > > purchase the DVD lawfully and aren't doing any copying. For many in > > the tech community, this encryption scheme, known as the Advanced > > Access Content System (AACS), felt like a final slap in the face from > > an entertainment industry whose recording branch sues kids for > > downloading music and whose movie branch makes crappy sequels that you > > can't even watch on your good Linux computer (you guessed it -- not > > authorized). > > > > When a person going by the screen name arnezami managed to uncover and > > publish the AACS key in February, other people immediately began > > reposting it. They did it because they're media consumers angry about > > the AACS and they wanted Hollywood and the world to know that they > > don't need no stinkin' authorized players. That's when the Motion > > Picture Association of America and the AACS Licensing Administrator > > (AACS LA) started sending out the cease and desist letters. Lawyers > > for the AACS LA argued that the number could be used to circumvent > > copy protection measures on DVDs and posting it was therefore a > > violation of the anticircumvention clauses in the Digital Millennium > > Copyright Act. They targeted blogs and social networks with cease and > > desists, even sending notice to Google that the search engine should > > stop returning results for people searching for the AACS key (as of > > this writing, Google returns nearly 1.5 million pages containing it). > > > > While some individuals complied with the AACS LA, in many cases > > community sentiment was so overwhelming that it was impossible to > > quell the tide of hexadecimal madness. Popular news site Digg tried to > > take down articles containing the number, and for a while it appeased > > the AACS LA. But Digg is a social network whose content is determined > > by millions of people, and as soon as Digg staffers took down one > > number, it would pop up in hundreds of other places. At last Digg's > > founder, Kevin Rose, gave up and told the community that if Digg got > > sued, it'd go down fighting. Many other sites, such as Wikipedia and > > Wired.com, deliberately published the number in articles, daring the > > AACS LA to sue them. Sites like MySpace and LiveJournal are also rife > > with the number -- like Digg, these sites are made up entirely of user > > content, and it would be practically impossible for administrators to > > scrub the number out. > > > > The AACS key protests have become so popular because they reach far > > beyond the usual debates over copyright infringement. This isn't about > > my right to copy movies -- it's about my right to play movies on > > whatever machine I want to. The AACS scheme is the perfect planned > > obsolescence generator. It will absolutely force people to upgrade > > their existing DVD players because soon they won't be authorized to > > play new DVDs. Even worse, the AACS scheme allows movie companies to > > revoke authorized status for players. Already, the AACS LA has revoked > > the authorized status of the WinDVD media player, so anybody who > > invested in WinDVD will have to reinvest in a new player -- at least, > > until that player's authorized status is revoked too. > > > > The AACS, more than any other digital rights management scheme, has > > revealed that the Hollywood studios have formed a cartel with > > electronics manufacturers who will do anything to suck more money out > > of the public. If you want to watch lawfully purchased movies, the > > only sane thing to do is post the number. Stand up and be counted. > > > > http://www.alternet.org/story/52242/ > > >
