Re: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
Dennis McCunney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not entirely a myth, unfortunately. Show me the numbers. Real numbers, not the abstract estimates of publishers associations. Find a particular piece of restricted work and detect a disturbance in the sales series at the point where an illegally derestricted electronic version hit the net. [...] But in the case of Baen (and other success stories for the freely shared model) one important bit of my argument is common: the creators _gave permission_ for it to happen. It was done with thier knowledge and consent. Indeed. My point is that content creators will do well to authorise their fans to promote them to their friends in this way. If they don't, they are ultimately harming their own revenue and playing into the hands of the large corporations. Breaking a law is breaking a law, even if it is unjust. It should not be taken lightly, but this is an illegality that should not even exist. Creators, help yourselves by inviting others to help themselves! MJR ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This is my first and probably my last word on the subject. On Saturday, Oct 5, 2002, at 18:56 Australia/Canberra, MJ Ray wrote: Why does an artist want to cooperate with large corporations and make criminals out of people who appreciate their work? It doesn't grow their audience and just leaves people feeling bad... Well, I think that authors should be allowed to do what they like. If they want to sell through a large corporation and alienate their audiences, let them. If they want to give their work away freely, let them. Asking why they want to co-operate with big business is beside the point; if they want to, then it's not our place to stop them. This is why I disagree with the GPL as well as any DRM schemes, because it forces authors down a certain path. Especially if the entire world uses DRM, and you can't choose a different way to release your work... or especially if the entire world is comprised of GPL-licenced software. (And may I be damned for saying that.) -Terence Tan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQE9oCu1Rp0kKDQrlIERAkc9AKCFBR+x98aeZ3D2HaKBcF+y8FI/4wCgoikX VRB/PR6V55Z48pp42KjD4ac= =BQ0K -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
Terence Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I disagree with the GPL as well as any DRM schemes, because it forces authors down a certain path. [...] You misunderstand the GPL's effect on author's rights. The GPL is only concerned with guaranteeing all future users the same rights as the original users. Please go read the GPL FAQ on the gnu.org site, but feel free to email me off-list if you can't see why you're wrong. MJR ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
Dennis McCunney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But most of the folks I know at the moment are writers, artists, and musicians trying to make a living out of what is essentially intellectual property, who are _directly_ hurt by unrestricted sharing of thier copyrighted work. I'm not concerned about loss of revenue by large corporations. I _am_ concerend about the welfare of my friends. This is an old myth peddled by the people who make money from restricting sharing of creative works. In the DRM world, the people who make the most money are the gatekeepers, the large corporations. Why does an artist want to cooperate with large corporations and make criminals out of people who appreciate their work? It doesn't grow their audience and just leaves people feeling bad. Experiences of authors who *welcome* their works being shared are documented in articles such as http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm (OK, so that's a widget frosting or related services model, but it still shows what a good way it is to become known. There are probably others, but that was the first I grabbed from my bookmarks). Personally, I'd go further and start looking for a way to provide work as copyleft, but then you knew that anyway. I'm concerned about the welfare of *all* my friends, but both producers and consumers. MJR ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
RE: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 4:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit) Dennis McCunney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But most of the folks I know at the moment are writers, artists, and musicians trying to make a living out of what is essentially intellectual property, who are _directly_ hurt by unrestricted sharing of thier copyrighted work. I'm not concerned about loss of revenue by large corporations. I _am_ concerend about the welfare of my friends. This is an old myth peddled by the people who make money from restricting sharing of creative works. In the DRM world, the people who make the mostmoney are the gatekeepers, the large corporations. It's not entirely a myth, unfortunately. Why does an artist want to cooperate with large corporations and make criminals out of people who appreciate their work? It doesn't grow their audience and just leaves people feeling bad. Experiences of authors who *welcome* their works being shared are documented in articles such as http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm (OK, so that's a widget frosting or related services model, but it still shows what a good way it is to become known. There are probably others, but that was the first I grabbed from my bookmarks). Sure. I'm familiar with this, I have Baen's site bookmarked, know various of the folks at Baen, and probably (without having looked at the URL) know some of the folks quoted. Baen credits the website with thier metamorphosis into a hard cover publisher, as the downloads spur demand for the author's books. (As it happens, SF/Fantasy is the bulk of my fiction reading, and over the years I've met many of the folks who write, illustrate, and edit it.) And Janis Ian has a nice piece on her website making similar points, which got her a prompt response from the RIAA asking to talk. :) But in the case of Baen (and other success stories for the freely shared model) one important bit of my argument is common: the creators _gave permission_ for it to happen. It was done with thier knowledge and consent. My gripe is with _unauthorized_ sharing, not with sharing at all. If you, as an author, explicity allow and encourage sharing under a copyleft or similar structure, I'll happily share it with folks I believe might be interested. If you _don't_ explicityly allow it, it's questionable, to put it mildly, for me to share it anyway. Personally, I'd go further and start looking for a way to provide work as copyleft, but then you knew that anyway. I'm concerned about the welfare of *all* my friends, but both producers and consumers. Agreed. MJR __ Dennis ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
RE: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Nordstrom Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit) On Mon, Sep 30, 2002, Dennis McCunney wrote: Intellectual property is _property_, just as material objects are. Redistribution of copyrighted intellectual property with the express permission of the rights holder is _theft_, pure and simple. s/with/without/ (although I don't agree that it is property nor theft to redistribute it:) Agreed on the correction of with to without. That was what I menat to say in the first place. As for the other part... You make the same mistake as the last time we discussed a similar subject (on plucker-list), i.e. the assumption that the rest of the world == USA ;-) No, I don't. The US is a signatory to the Berne Copyright Convention. I believe your country is too. What varies is what is considered infringement. In my country you are allowed to make copies of intellectual work for family members and *friends*. What you refer to would come under the heading of Fair Use over here. The sticky part comes when you try to define what a reasonable number of friends may be. The entire world won't pass muster. Nor will The entire country. In USA you seem to have a long history of passing laws that protects the revenue for some companies; in the rest of the world we usually also take into consideration how we can balance the rights of both sides (i.e. in this case the copyright holders and the users). Let me put it this way. Suppose you write prose instead of code. In particular, suppose you write books, and sell these books to publishers. Suppose that electronic format editions of your books are released, which can be purchased for a fee from the publisher and downloaded by the reader to read on whatever device the format is for (like, say, a PalmOS based PDA). Further suppose that someone with a rather liberal idea of family and friends posts copies of your books to places like binary newsgroups and makes them available by FTP. People grab the free version instead of paying for a liscensed copy. Not only does your publisher lose potential revenue on this -- _you_ do too. And since you are like the vast majority of writers, you are lucky if you _can_ make a living writing, so _any_ lost sales will hurt. Lose enough sales and your publiaher may decline to publish your next book because your sales aren't high enough to make it worth publishing you. Wouldn't you be at least a _little_ annoyed at widespread copying and sharing of your work, without even being asked how you felt about it? I _don't_ like a lot of what is happening re intellectiual property in the US. I'm opposed to software patents, for example, and appalled by the efforts of folks like Disney to indefinitely extend copyrights on stuff they have. But most of the folks I know at the moment are writers, artists, and musicians trying to make a living out of what is essentially intellectual property, who are _directly_ hurt by unrestricted sharing of thier copyrighted work. I'm not concerned about loss of revenue by large corporations. I _am_ concerend about the welfare of my friends. /Mike __ Dennis ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
