[rumori] Re: pho: Copyright or Copy Wrong?


From: Don Joyce (djATwebbnet.com)
Date: Mon Feb 19 2001 - 12:20:25 PST


It's assignable because the laws that not only allow but promote it were
conceived, written, and lobbied through Congress by those who wanted to get
it assigned to THEM. They wanted to do this for MONEY, and for this they
maintain little or no concern for the creative integrity of artists or
their creations. Our culture lives with the treacherous results.

There are no disadvantages to artists not being able to relinquish
permanent control over their creations. Acquiring control over Copyrighted
work by non-creators should never have been allowed to be anything more
than a contracted rental situation requiring regular renewal by both
parties to continue, with ownership of copyrighted material ALWAYS
reverting to the creator by default just as soon as the copyright rental
contracts end or fail. We're just stupid, that's all.

This SINGLE change in copyright law would do a whole huge lot to support
the artist and IN REALITY significantly strengthen his/her position in all
this entertainment law that now victimizes them. All this loose lip service
about "supporting artists" coming from non-artists is ALL total bullshit
until this relatively uncomplicated adjustment to copyright is done AND
made retroactive. All works by living artists or existing estates not
having this new copyright rental agreement would immediately revert to the
artists or their estate unless a new rental contract is negotiated by
whatever commercial pirates stole ownership of them in the past. No one can
actually "own" art, but if we are going to provide this illusion to anyone,
it should be for the one who made it.
DJ
Negativland

>I have a very basic, and perhaps very dumb, question: Why is copyright even
>assignable?
>
>I was thinking about this topic Friday morning at the O'Reilly P2P
>conference as
>John Perry Barlow, Lawrence Lessig and others discussed copyright
>protection and
>infringement. It seems that there are two primary criticisms of copyright
>in its
>current state: (a) it primarily benefits businesspeople rather than
>creators; and
>(b) it's fast becoming unenforceable (as Ian Clarke has frequently noted).
>I'm just
>now beginning to wonder, why not make copyright
>unassignable/nontransferable/unsellable and let the Deadhead karma model
>take over?
>Would people be more concerned with copyright if they associated it with
>artists
>rather than corporations, or do only a tiny fraction consider file transfer a
>political action? What are the disadvantages of artists not being able to
>relinquish control over their creations?
>
>Why does Paul McCartney own Buddy Holly's catalogue? Why does he not own
>his own?
>Thanks in advance for the necessary background on this.
>
>Joe McCombs
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kfreundlich" <kfreundlichATearthlink.net>
>To: "Whitney Broussard" <WhitneyATsmmmusiclaw.com>; "'Don Joyce '"
><djATwebbnet.com>;
><phoATonehouse.com>
>Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 7:41 PM
>Subject: RE: pho: Copyright or Copy Wrong?
>
>
>> Well said Whitney. The two must obviously go hand in hand. It really irks me
>> when these Copyright Office folks speak of "United Front Of Artists", even
>> as the majority if not all of today's artist have contractually given away
>> their copyrights. It is complete bunk.
>>
>> However, I don't see compulsory licenses working until the balance between
>> the record company and the artist vis a vis royalty and "unrecouped"
>> balances is adjusted. The beauty of the publishing side of things, while it
>> is not perfect, the writer's share is historically 50% as opposed to the
>> 10-13% of the record monies most artist are promised which results in no
>> cash flow for the overwhelming majority. How we get to that parity is one of
>> the great challenges ahead don't you think?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-phoATonehouse.com [mailto:owner-phoATonehouse.com]On Behalf Of
>> Whitney Broussard
>> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 6:51 PM
>> To: 'Don Joyce '; 'phoATonehouse.com '
>> Subject: RE: pho: Copyright or Copy Wrong?
>>
>>
>> >>>>And once again dragging that old beard of "supporting artists" over his
>> art oblivious fangs to get sympathy for the LAW EXPLOITING devils
>>
>> I agree with you there. I think anyone who asserts the need to "protect
>> artists" in support of strengthening copyright law but who refuses to, in
>> return, support the fair remuneration of artists as a matter of copyright
>> law is engaging in the worst sort of deception or, at best, is seriously
>> deluded.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Don Joyce
>> To: phoATonehouse.com
>> Sent: 2/17/01 10:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: pho: Copyright or Copy Wrong?
>>
>> "We're hoping to get a united front of artists who believe that we have
>> to
>> keep fair use from being exploited, and the ability to exploit that has
>> been
>> tremendous,"
>>
>> I have not read a more mind boggling misapprehension of reality in some
>> time!
>> There is absolutely NO basis for this statement. Fair Use is the most
>> underexploited, unavailable, underadvertised, and withheld from
>> practical
>> use aspect in ALL of copyright law and always has been. This guy is a
>> liar,
>> an idiot, and a lame brained shill for the stingy intellects that will
>> uphold the artistic restrictions of copyright NO MATTER WHAT they get in
>> the way of.
>> And once again dragging that old beard of "supporting artists" over his
>> art
>> oblivious fangs to get sympathy for the LAW EXPLOITING devils who bought
>> him his BMW and who have not the slightest inclination of supporting art
>> or
>> artists if it should ever even slightly diminish their own copyright
>> cut.
>> Take the MONEY out of "supporting artists" and see how many of these
>> caring
>> individuals stick around for just the ART. Sorry, guy, I'd rather
>> associate
>> with a united front of music "pirates' any day, at least they're honest
>> about what they're doing. NO RESPECT!
>> DJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Friday would not be complete without Brad's Digital Music Digest...here
>> >goes:
>> >
>> >
>> >http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41845,00.html
>> >Copyright or Copy Wrong?
>> >by Brad King
>> >
>> >2:00 a.m. Feb. 16, 2001 PST
>> > The copyright is wrong, Orrin.
>> >Looks like there's going to be a showdown at high noon on the Senate
>> floor
>> >between warring authors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
>> >On the one side are those who believe the DMCA has allowed piracy to
>> become
>> >rampant, and technology companies to run roughshod over property
>> rights. On
>> >the other side are those who believe the content companies, especially
>> in
>> >the week of the Napster ruling, have too much control.
>> >
>> >
>> >The DMCA was designed to usher intellectual property and copyright into
>> the
>> >digital age by creating the framework for licensing deals and
>> anti-piracy
>> >measures. Since its inception in 1998, the law has come under attack
>> from
>> >technologists who claim the act gives content companies too much power.
>> >
>> >Those arguments led Bruce Lehman, one of the original writers of the
>> bill,
>> >to put together a consortium of trade and artist groups to fight those
>> very
>> >technology companies.
>> >
>> >"The balance (of copyright law) is tilting toward this anarchist,
>> >everything-for-free view," said Robert Hudson Westover, media relations
>> >consultant for the International Intellectual Property Institute where
>> >Lehman works. "You've got to remember that technology is on the side of
>> >those who want to pirate. They are working on shutting down Napster,
>> but
>> >there are hundreds of other applications out there."
>> >
>> >Executives from the streaming and downloading companies have complained
>> that
>> >without access to content from the music and movie industry, their
>> >businesses would certainly fail.
>> >
>> >That argument seemed to hit home this week when the Ninth Circuit Court
>> of
>> >Appeals upheld in part an injunction which could shut down the
>> file-trading
>> >service Napster.
>> >
>> >The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
>> wrote
>> >an open letter to the president, announcing his desire to open up
>> hearings
>> >to discuss the effects of the Napster ruling.
>> >
>> >"I have been troubled by the possible practical problems that may arise
>> from
>> >this decision," Hatch wrote. "I am troubled as a strong supporter and
>> prime
>> >author of much of our copyright law and intellectual property rights.
>> >
>> >"Mr. President, by ordering the lower court to impose a preliminary
>> >injunction -- before a trial on the merits, mind you -- on this service
>> that
>> >had developed a community of over 50 million music fans, it could have
>> the
>> >effect of shutting down Napster entirely, depriving more than 50
>> million
>> >consumers access to a music service they have enjoyed."
>> >It's that type of talk that Westover said prompted the formation of the
>> >consortium. No members have been named as of yet, although Westover
>> said the
>> >response from the content industry has been very positive.
>> >
>> >"We're hoping to get a united front of artists who believe that we have
>> to
>> >keep fair use from being exploited, and the ability to exploit that has
>> been
>> >tremendous," Westover said. "The potential for changing the DMCA is for
>> the
>> >artists to lose out on their only commodity -- their intellectual
>> property."
>> >
>> >---
>> >
>> >Napster fallout: Consumer electronics companies might be forced to
>> redesign
>> >their architecture to avoid ending up in court after watching the
>> courts
>> >continue to rule in favor of copyright holders in the digital
>> entertainment
>> >arena.
>> >MP3.com was bounced for creating a digital database of music. Napster
>> >continues to get dinged for allowing files to be shared over a network.
>> >
>> >Electronics manufacturers are faced with the daunting task of whether
>> to
>> >develop new systems that can offer similar types of services through
>> >television sets.
>> >
>> >"Actual litigation might not be necessary," said Fred von Lohmann,
>> visiting
>> >researcher at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. "The unstated
>> >threat is good enough to distort the way technology is built."
>> >
>> >Television recording device TiVo (TIVO) places limitations on its
>> >technology, von Lohmann said, using a proprietary storage format, not
>> >digital output, and no ability to eliminate commercials. He said
>> devices
>> >that didn't impose those types of limitations could conceivably face
>> >litigation.
>> >
>> >Panasonic Consumer Electronics will release a television with a hard
>> drive,
>> >capable of recording 30 hours of shows in MPEG 2, 30-second
>> fast-forward
>> >capability, and an Internet connection through the free ReplayTV
>> service
>> >offered to new users.
>> >
>> >---
>> >
>> >The old, new Napster: Fresh off its own $180 million
>> copyright-infringement
>> >suit, MP3.com jumped into the file-trading business as users began
>> looking
>> >for new music-sharing opportunities.
>> >
>> >Where Napster users trade digital music files across a centralized
>> network,
>> >MP3.com (MPPP) is facilitating file-trading the old fashioned (and
>> legal)
>> >way -- with CDs.
>> >
>> >The digital music company teamed with www.Swapit.com (STG), a
>> mail-order
>> >business that allows users to trade in their old CDs and games in
>> exchange
>> >for credit to purchase from affiliated stores.
>> >
>> >Not to worry that you'll only be able to purchase bands on MP3.com --
>> the
>> >Swapit service aggregates used stores, giving consumers a shopping
>> choice.
>> >Think of it as a used-entertainment store on the Web.
>> >
>> >"This is a perfectly symbiotic relationship," Swapit president Howard
>> >Schneider said in a written release. "We provide the service, MP3.com
>> >provides users who seek music."
>> >
>> ><< Back 2 of 2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Hal Bringman
>> >HBPR, LLC
>> >5055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
>> >Los Angeles, CA 90036
>> >Phone: 323-650-1328
>> >AIM: HBringman
>> >Pager: 1904483ATskytel.com
>> >www.hbpr.com
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------
>> >This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>> >
>> >To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> >To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> your
>> >request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> >To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> >"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>> This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>>
>> To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> your
>> request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>>
>> To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>> request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>
>>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>>
>> To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>> To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>> request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>> To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>> "unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>>

----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------



Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index


[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.