RE: [rumori] Re: Burned?

From: Don Joyce (
Date: Tue Apr 30 2002 - 01:08:54 PDT

Or...would you rather not get paid for any copying that's done on-line at
all? Cause that's all we have now.

My idea is for on-line transferrance ONLY, and not intended to cover
anything else, and I'm not at all sure anything else needs to be IF all
on-line copying were compensated whenever it happened. This trying to
justify compensation as "fair" only if every possible extraneous scenerio
is covered is not going to fly in the digital age. Can't be done. My idea
covers of a whole HUGE chunk of otherwise totally uncompensated cultural
exchange, and absolutely eliminates any impulse for users to subvert it,
and that's a plus, not a minus.

Movies: Seems like you pay the same amount to get in no matter how much it
cost to make or how long it took to make it. Do you hear THEM crying? Just
make it good and volume of use, not price per use, will take of you just
like it does them.

Your compensation will be ultimately decided by someone else no matter
what, just like it is with stores selling your CDs - you don't tell them,
they tell you. And the price doesn't vary a penny according to anybody's
idea of quality. Any multiple copy product works that way. If you don't
like it, make one of a kind paintings and set your own price.

Bush wouldn't be writing this law, Congress would. Writing the appropriate
Internet copy law will NOT be easy, but if the collective emphasis among
those bastards can be kept on public interest rather than private
interests, and specifically written so, you always have the Supreme Court
to go to when it is overstepped. They're GOING to write some such law
eventually anyway, so I suggest we try to direct them towards public
interest with specific plans rather than just leaving it up in the air for
the private music conglomerates to write entirely for their own benefit
like they've always done before (It actually wont benefit them in practice,
but they're never going to believe that, so it's going to be all about copy

OK, it's never going to happen, I know that, so let's just anxiously await
the privately created alternative for which there will be utterly no
recourse but submit to private copy control, which we wont, so on-line
"criminals" will remain our biggest "crime" problem, cracking becomes a way
of life, nothing transferred on-line will be easy or compatible or glitch
free, and unless you're a superstar, you STILL wont make any money there
off what you spend time and money to create.


>Copying is a poor measure of the value or worth people place on a piece of
>digital media.
>If a person has a media file on their computer, and then copies that file to
>a portable device so they can use the file at home and on the road, should
>that count as another copy. What if they then give that device with the copy
>on it to a friend. There is no way any DRM(*) system can distinguish between
>personal copying and copying between different parties.
>Should an artist who releases media that is downloaded by 10 thousand and
>only viewed more than once by one hundred be compensated more than an artist
>who has a thousand downloads that are all burnt to CD and listened to often.
>A DRM system would see any copy as being the same. Unless it tracks not just
>copying, but also listening/playing files.
>Lastly if one thousand copies of a two hour movie you spent three years
>working on are made, and one thousand copies of a five minute short I spent
>two weeks working on are made, is it fair we both get compensated equally.
>Or should I get three times the compensation for someone downloading one of
>my tracks in three parts, than if they downloaded the track as one file. The
>only way around this is to have the DRM system value different files
>differently - and I am not happy having a central authority place value on
>my work. I don't trust markets, but I'd rather the market value art than
>These are a few major issues to be seen with compensation by amount of
>copies made.
>This is without mentioning the need to enforce DRM on all new copy capable
>devices, and the need to trust the administrating government. Do you trust
>the Bush government to implement this, and no more? Really?
>As has been said, it's an interesting idea. But I don't think it's feasible.
> Sam
>(*) digital rights management
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Don Joyce []
>Sent: Monday, 29 April 2002 5:04 a.m.
>Subject: Re: [rumori] Re: Burned?
>Sure Steev, good ideas are sometimes dangerous, but they're also better bets
>than bad ideas which are also dangerous. Nothing is going to stop these very
>same fears of yours (and mine) from being implemented in the present
>Internet, and in fact that is exactly what is being planned by many private
>interests. So I opt for Gov. oversight in a good idea than no public
>oversight in a bad one.
>Do you object to number recall on your telephone? There are plenty of useful
>and desirable reasons to monitor media traffic without the participant's
>identities being archived anywhere. I'm suggesting we do that BY LAW instead
>of leaving it all up to the selfish and uncontrolable whims of private
>commerce, who will do it for sure under the guise of "marketing data"
>eventually. DJ Negativland
>>on Sat, 27 Apr 2002 Don Joyce told me:
>>->My idea has nothing to do with copy protection - there would be none
>>->on-line because all Net content could be free for the taking. Copying
>>->content there would become ENCOURAGED(!) because the more you are
>>->copied, the more you will be paid. It's a complete reversal of the
>>->status quo, eliminating the entire concept of digital "crime" and
>>->effectively removing the entire concept of copyright enforcement from
>>->on-line activities. As for tracking, I see only a little ugh, not a
>>->big or even important one, because it would ONLY read what you are
>>->doing in terms of content transferrance, NOT that it is you
>>->doing it or why. Neither would it stop you from doing whatever
>>->you want to do, and it
>>that's great if you could get it to happen exactly that way. i'm just
>>saying, it would only take a little bit more to *add* features to the
>>system that would invade privacy and prohibit certain behaviors. so
>>while you're pushing for that, the corporations that want more are
>>pretending to help you and work with you and then at the last minute
>>they're pushing through their big-brother add-ons. it's just too
>>dangerous, IMHO.
>>To be clear: you're talking about a great theory, i agree, but I'm
>>talking about what would (or might) happen if it really turned into
>>public policy. scary. I'd rather just not go there. I don't want my
>>computer or my walkman or my TV sending any information to anything
>>anywhere, for any reason, unless i tell it to.
>>Rumori, the Discussion List
>>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>>Rumori list archives & other information are at
>Rumori, the Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>Rumori list archives & other information are at
>Rumori, the Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>Rumori list archives & other information are at

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

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

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