Over the holiday I was browsing the unique Eliot Bay Bookstore in Pioneer Square in Seattle. This is one of the great bookstores in the USA and always worth a visit. In there I ran across a Banksy book. The copyright notice was amusing.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Copyright is not always for losers but increasingly it is.
Protecting intellectual property is a good thing and encourages people to create stuff and make a career. On the other hand, taking copy protection into absurd extremes does nothing but make problems for creators and readers/users/customers.
The position of old time storytellers in the late middle ages was cut short by the advent of the printing press. No legal remedy could have protected the old vocal story telling tradition/profession.
In the digital age this is happening big time again as musical recording companies and software firms and others try to get lawyers to do what they cannot do, which is to compete successfully in an open setting/market.
The physical value of a musical recording is automatically less when 250 tracks can be put on an audio CD instead of 15 or 20. I know of no recording company that has adjusted to this by issuing a music CD with 250 tracks.
Copy protection legal schemes cannot undo an actual fact and in that limited sense copy protection is definitely for losers.
Progress is being held back by use of artificial legal means to keep dying business models alive. It is like having dinosaurs on life support. It is interesting but they are on the road to extinction anyway.
Copyright is there to protect the intellectual property holder (ie. the creator) and to provide him(her, it…) with a living.
The way it was distorted into being unrecognizable is the fault of these other intermediates that have the delusional paranoia that they are the music industry.
And to tell you the truth, everytime someone gives them money by buying some incredibly bad commercial product, (Paris, Britney, boysbands, whatever…) I tend to think that they are.
Fight those f***ers. Don’t buy any (I mean any!) Digital online DRM’ed music. Why should you? You can buy the CD and rip it to whatever portable device you have, from the Walkman to the Zune. And in ten years time, your iPod is dead and you want to put those tracks on other player, you will still be able to.
OTOH, Banksy art is, in many respects the equivalent to Linux, since it is free, public and the author usually is not payed for it. Still he’s funded to produce works, that nobody will own. I like that concept.
And more, how can you copyright a wall…
Yeah well you would think that considering you hotlink and steal bandwidth and others copyright 100% of the time.
Any chance of you removing the hotlink to my artwork so the hits on my bandwidth stop any time soon?
#1, tom
The physical value of a musical recording is automatically less when 250 tracks can be put on an audio CD instead of 15 or 20.
Bullcrap. It doesn’t matter if I have one CD with 250 tracks or 25 CDs with 10 tracks each. Each track remains the same value and appreciative quality. If I make my living making music then you are taking bread from my table by ignoring that fact.
Copy protection legal schemes cannot undo an actual fact and in that limited sense copy protection is definitely for losers.
So if you illegally copy and deprive me of my living then that is OK with you? Sorry buddy, but you are the loser, and a thief. My property is mine and I earned it. When you are ready to give away what miserable few things you might own, then come see me and we can talk. Just don’t take what belongs to me unless you are willing to also give up what you own.
3 Any chance of you removing the hotlink to my artwork so the hits on my bandwidth stop any time soon?
Same link as before, or have they added new one(s)?
1. On the other hand, taking copy protection into absurd extremes does nothing but make problems for creators and readers/users/customers.
Agreed.
The contract with society, where we agree to enforce sanctions against unauthorised use – in return for the material eventually entering the public domain – stops making sense when “eventually” becomes “never”.
i.e. when corporate Disney doesn’t want to ever see “Micky & Friends” in the public domain… and can help pay to have copyright extended… the system is broken.
http://tinyurl.com/37qz8
Why wasn’t author’s lifetime plus 50-years enough???
Why wasn’t 75-years for a corporate product enough???
Europe gives 20-years more, so we have to “harmonize” our legislation?
IMO, the copyright should end when all of the original creators are dead with a 10 year minimum guarantee should all of the creators die early. Once all the creators for a work are dead, the work should go into the public domain.
Mr. Fusion – It’s obvious you don’t understand copyright law, or the concepts that apply to it. You’re making yourself look foolish.
Firstly – Amazingly enough as an artist you don’t have many rights to a recording of your work. That’s why its the RIAA that do all the suing. They are protecting the rights they have on the recording. You have rights relating to the creative work that is described by the recording. That is actually a different matter however.
There are many other problems with your short comment, you have a good point in there, but you are obfuscating it with utter rubbish.
Also – “appreciative quality” is not the same as physical value. You are talking about subjective value. Physical value is how much the track cost to get onto that CD. This price is pretty damn minuscule for the average CD. Just because you think the track is worth $1.50 doesn’t mean everyone else does. Especially when you consider that the average artist will probably never see any money from the sale of that CD due to the way the recording industry pays artists. So that entire paragraph just shows that you missed the point, and furthermore – don’t know how most of the recording industry works.
Of course with independents it is a little different (actual independents, not arms of large companies that call themselves that).
btw – I don’t advocate copyright infringement (which, btw, is not theft – from a legal standpoint). I also don’t advocate blind uninformed rhetoric though… which the recording industry spouts about piracy, and appears to have got you to believe it.
John, it is an amusing catch.
reply to #4 Mr fusion-it is interesting you call me a thief since I do not advocate illegal copying of anything. I would like an apology from you post haste Fusion old man. And as for the loser comment another apology would be in order. What is your problem?
I am in fact talking about a fact, the actual value of material in the digital age is transformed/lessened. The value of a track of music or a book or a movie is now different because they are so easy to copy. No?
Unless the industries adapt to the times all the artists and technical people and the shippers of CD and sales persons are all going to be hurt. Depending on a copy protection plan better suited to 1856 than to 2006 is not going to protect anything. Excessive use of “Alice in Wonderland” legal fictions is for losers.
It is an issue of practicality anything I value for personal profit, I do not post on the Internet. I have a friend who makes music and he takes the stealing of his work in a rational manner, as free advertising for his live performances. This may not suit others, so let them fight the good fight and try to stop the digital era.
The central miracle of the digital era is the ability to make perfect copies. It is sort of like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, feeding the multitudes with a couple of fish and a little basket of bread.
Perhaps the fisherman’s guild and the bakers association of Judea should have been the ones to call for the crucification instead of the religions fanatics.
Anyway thanks for getting this discussion going into some substance. Watch your insults Fusion!
#10, tom
Sorry, but I owe you nothing. You are really quite delusional to suggest on the one hand that the work may be copied then say it shouldn’t.
#3, You can buy the CD and rip it to whatever portable device you have, …
#10…since I do not advocate illegal copying of anything.
What both you and #8 miss is the value of the work. The actual media it is on is irrelevant to the value of the work. If you buy a work under an agreement, then you are expected to follow that agreement. If you rip iTunes to another format and it is against the agreement, then you just took the royalty from the artists. While steal might not be the “technical” word, it adequately sums it up in my opinion.
A couple of months ago I was asked to take pictures of a football club. There were three teams in the club. The agreed price would be $10 each for a DVD. I took a couple thousand pictures of the three teams. I spent almost 100 hours putting together the slide show. The club Commissioner told me to stop burning after I had 27 done. He then started talking about $5 a piece. When I balked and finally accepted $7 he asked for three more copies. I found out later that he copied the DVD and was selling them himself. Now is that stealing? It sure the “f” is in my books. And the media they are on doesn’t mean Jack shit. I took the time. I payed for the gas and wear on my car. I used my camera and computer. I did the work. I made the effort. I edited the pictures. I produced the slide show. And you think it is fine for him to reproduce my work in some great egalitarian logic of “getting with the times”.
If #8, Gregory thinks the artists are being ripped off by the RIAA, then it is up to the artists to go after the RIAA, not for him to decide that the artists being ripped off once is reason enough to rip them off again.
Firstly – Amazingly enough as an artist you don’t have many rights to a recording of your work.
Bull, as the creator of the work YOU own it. Most recordings require the artists to sign away some of those rights. That is something totally different and a very poor excuse to suggest all music is OK to just take (or steal).
Also – “appreciative quality” is not the same as physical value. You are talking about subjective value.
No. I am talking appreciative value. You can talk subjective value. I am talking appreciative value. The difference? Regardless of the bit rate, you will still appreciate the music whether it is recorded and played back at 196K or 42K for the same appreciation of the music. You will still enjoy the song on a FM radio as you will on a high end stereo. If the artist receives any actual money is between him and his label. A total bull argument for just taking the music. The actual media the work is on is secondary and not included in this discussion.
Sorry Gregary, but you are the fool that is trying to justify the illegal taking of copyrighted material.
I stumbled upon this photo and these comments and have to wonder what is up with this.
I see in the #11 posting that Mr Fusion is calling other posters fools and delusional. I guess that is his substitute for having a civil discussion.
I have noted Mr Fusions rant about his being ripped off by people copying his professional photos on DVD. That is the exact point was made earlier is this exchange. It is too easy to copy stuff. It makes things different.
I have a daughter in a dance class. When recital time came along there were photos taken. The photographer did not issue photo CDs but gave out only prints. I asked for a photo CD but the photographer would not sell or distribute that. I did get one a year later for free after the photos had lost their monetary value.
The solution of copy protection and involving the police and the courts to protect the photos is over kill. The photographer simply protected himself physically.
Issuing a photo DVD or any other sort of thing like that is like issuing a rubber stamp with ink on it. You can just ask people to make prints but no copies of the DVD, and that is about all. It is courtesy not law.
I think Mr Fusion should restrict him self to the subject at hand and leave the insults and personal attacks out. I wonder if he does this sort of thing in personal face to face discussions? It is a good way to make your point seem secondary to being a rude character.
So many chat rooms and other forums get ruined by this sort of thing.
Copy protection is an important subject, let us stay on the subject please.