I've talked about Copyright law with people before. (There's actually times when I talk about it quite alot.) And there's 2 ways people seem to act. They either largely agree with me. Or have very (negative) emotional reactions to what I say. (And start throwing insults, rather than trying to prove me wrong. So I hope anyone who disagrees with me argues with me rather than engaging in name calling.)
So,... at the risk of being flamed, I'll just give my POV/rant.
RIGHT AND WRONG
When thinking about Copyright law, one of the first things you need to realize is that the law has nothing to do with what's morally right or wrong.
If you think about it, what's morally right or wrong never changes (and cannot change). But the law changes all the time and is still changing. (Therefore the law does NOT represent what's morally right and wrong.)
You might then argue that the law strives to represent what's morally right and wrong. And it's our understanding and realization (or more accurately, the politicians' understanding and realization) of what's actually morally right and wrong that causes the law to change. However, anyone who has seen how laws are actually created knows that this isn't true.
A sad but true fact is that virtually all laws come about through lobbying. And lobbying is really just a euphemism (a polite way of saying) "bribe". In other words, laws come about by bribing politicians.
(The whole topic of moral right and wrong and the law really deserves much more discussion, but I'll refrain from doing so here for the sake of keeping this post from getting too long.)
So,... because of this... just because Copyright is law does NOT necessarily mean it is morally right. It might be (despite the fact that it is law). But just because it a law does not make it so. So we need to actually look at Copyright law to figure that out
COPYRIGHT LAW
Most of us have grown up with Copyright law our whole lives. Many of us think that's it's somehow natural. That's it's as natural a thing as "cold blooded killing being bad". But is it?!
(Let me give you an example, that I've heard people call "extreme", to help illustrate this. I give this example because I believe it makes it easier for people to see the point. That just because everyone is doing it... that just because things have always been like that... does NOT make it morally right.)
Today, most people consider slavery to be a disgusting practice, even though in the past people didn't. I fact, in the past slavery has been legal and even widely practiced. (There's still some places in the world where it is practiced.)
But did people at these times (when slavery was legal) consider slavery to be disgusting?! Did they see something wrong with slavery?! Most actually didn't. Most considered it natural. (For examples of this attitude today, simply go to parts of the world where slavery is still practiced.)
But why were they OK with slavery?!
My observations have lead me to think that: #1 people often don't figure-out for themselves what is morally right and wrong (but base their beliefs on what they've been explicitly or implicitly told by others).
And #2 people often believe that anything that is legal is morally right and anything that is illegal to be morally wrong.
(We've already shown that #2 is FALSE. And I hope everyone can see the problems with #1 too.)
So,... hopefully this example has at least opened up your mind to the possibility that Copyright law COULD BE morally wrong. (That even though many many people today feel that Copyright law is natural, that it might not be.)
For a brief history of Copyright law, please read this: http://slaw.ca/2006/04/25/publishers-and-copyright/
MORTALITY OF COPYRIGHT LAW
So, let's look at slavery again. Why is it morally wrong? What's about slavery makes it so bad?
Words like freedom and liberty might be coming to your mind. Or, more specifically, that the act of forcibly taking away ones freedom it morally wrong. Or, said another way,.... When you force someone to do something you have done something morally wrong.
If you agree with the above statement, then you need to look at what Copyright law really is. Isn't Copyright law forcing people to do things? Isn't then Copyright law then morally law?
Really, this topic deserves alot more discussion. (And I'll be happy to do so for anyone who wants to argue it.) But I'll leave that argument at that for now (for the sake of keeping this post from getting too long.)
MAKING MONEY
You might then ask,... if there's no Copyright law, then how do I make money? I then say 3 things.
#1: What does making money have to do with what's morally right or wrong. (For example, a hitman needs to make money. But his job involves "killing in cold blood". So, the fact that you need to do something to make money does NOT make something morally right.)
#2: Copyright law was NOT created so people could make money! Copyright law was created to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. (Refer to the USA Constitution and the following URL for proof of this: http://slaw.ca/2006/04/25/publishers-and-copyright/ )
#3: History has shown that people were able to make a living without Copyright law.
COPYLEFT
For those interested, there's a concept called Copyleft that, in a way, makes it as if Copyright law does NOT exist.
Essentially, given that most of us live in countries where copyleft law is enforced against us, Copyleft has the effect of letting people choose to opt-out of copyright law. Copyleft does this by essentially uses Copyright law against itself.
For examples of Copyleft.... The Creative Commons' ShareALike concept is Copyleft. And the GNU GPL license is Copyleft. (The GNU GPL license is what most of that Free and Open Source software out there is licensed under.)
For more info on Copyleft see:
See ya
On 5/13/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Chuck,
You may want to check this out also...
See yaOn 5/13/06, Chuck Olsen < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Check out this just-posted interview with Negativland's Mark Hosler:
http://tinyurl.com/fkfrd
He says "You don't get total control" when you put a creative work
out into the world. If you want total control, keep it in your bedroom.
I tend to agree. That's not to say you shouldn't get paid for your
creative work. But if you put something out into the public
consciousness, you've already surrendered how that work will
be perceived, contextualized, and interpreted. Or even
mentally remixed, you might say.
Our lives are mashups. The whole fucking world is a mashup.
For this reason I'm increasingly against the "No Derivatives" clause
of Creative Commons licenses. Let me give you an example. I
was recently depressed about staying up all night doing web
production for my job. A piece of art by Hugh Macleod *almost*
represented how I felt. It was a purple scribble that said "We
can't go on like this." I made it red and changed it to say
"I can't go on like this" and posted it on my blog:
http://tinyurl.com/l6mx9
While Hugh kindly says I can do whatever I want with his art for
personal use, his CC license says "No derivatives." Those conflict.
That license says I can look at his work, and remix it in my head,
and create a personalized version of it, but I can't show anybody.
I can't recreate or regurgitate my experience of Hugh's art -
according to that CC license. Well, I say I can and I do.
This is particularly true in the digital age. Hugh is not losing anything
(especially monetarily) by my personal remix of his art. You can
say the same of using commercial music and images in your
videos. If you're not trying to redistribute or profit from another's
copyrighted work, why NOT include it in your creative palette?
The world around us is our creative palette. We have the right
to express the world around us, as artists and human beings.
(END RANT)
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Use |
| Explains |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
