How about actually addressing the issues, and dealing with the
questions raised by the radical reform of copyright, rather than
idiotic abolitionist positions
As something of a fan of the Libre Commons licenses I don't
understand what is
wrong with the consciousness raising content of 14+14. We shouldn't
take a
managerialistic view of either the problem or the public.
14+14 is not an abolitionist position. Is it? That sounds awfully
like copyright reform to me.
What's managerialist about seeking to form alliances with musicians
and artists rather than simply attack their source of independent
income. I know many musicians who live through their PRS payments
(mainly from the BBC) which are threatened if copyright were to be
changed either through 14+14 or abolition.
that are not substantiated by careful consideration of the pros
and cons - afterall SOMEHOW the artists and musicians *will* need
to be compensated else why would they accept change.
I'm more concerned with being able to sing in the shower (see
Australia's
current proposed copyright law)
I somehow don't see how The Man will monitor you in your shower. So a
bit of a straw (the) Man.
than Cliff Richard getting another pension (see
the interview in which SirCliff admits he ignored his financial
advisor's advice
to get one in the 1950s). Which isn't to say I haven't worked on
how to
"compensate" artists and musicians for their suffering and do not
continue to
do so.
We are not talking about Sound Recording Copyright here.
Creative Commons's fixation on showing how they can make you a
multimillionaire
like winning Pop Idol doesn't is harmful not only to freedom but to
people's
ability to -er- make money. Trying to reproduce the imaginary
benefits of
supply-side culture at the real expense of free culture and people
making a
living is not a mistake I wish to emulate.
Again, my point is to make an argument that appeals to artists and
musicians not the huge industries around it (CC's mistake). And a
definition of free culture, the limits and hey, how can it survive
without the very copyright that it needs to exist?
Public Domain NOT= Free Culture
See William Fisher's book, Promises to Keep, for an excellent
attempt to make a cogent case for copyright reform.
Do I *have* to read Fisher's book? I really wasn't impressed by
Lessig's riff on
it. If I want to be spied on online and have my use of music
monitored and
restricted in the name of monetisation I'll just start lobbying for
DRM. I'm
currently looking warily at Benkler, which seems to be a Web 2.0
remix of Maus
without the anthropology. It's been years since I've wished there
was a Cliff's
Notes for something. ;-)
Reviewed via Lessig is not the best way to read books IMHO.
Fisher is a very careful empirical look at the real numbers - and how
funds can (at least for the short term) be reconfigured to support a
new form of funding for the arts. Its interesting, quite convincing
and very very carefully researched. Try out the numbers in your next
argument with a record company -- blows them away.
I am not saying that that is the only answer. Merely FC has a nasty
habit of shouting slogans, rather than thinking. What is copyright?
What do we as a group want from it, and if it no longer fits the
requirements what will replace it?
Best
David
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
