[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] [OT] Model for copyright?

On 5 Sep 2002 at 5:18, Jeme A Brelin wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 5 Sep 2002 05:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net>
To:             	DVD-Discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] [OT] Model for copyright?
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On 3 Sep 2002, D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > I can't claim that this is original, but it's certainly
> > interesting:
> > 
> > Proposed that the objective of incenting artists while
> > enriching the public domain with still-valuable works is
> > reasonably accomplished by determining when the artist has
> > received *most* [1] of the commercial value of the work.
> The idea that copyright exists to provide financial incentive to artists
> is fallacious at best.  This was a notion conceived by the capitalists
> very late in the game.

Who continue to try to extend the times to increase revenues from a relatively 
few works (Winnie the Pooh, Mickey Mouse...)...I don't remember where but I 
think I read that Madison believed that the copyright was a reward for doing 
something and not a financial incentive...besides the whole notion that every 
human activity must be debased to a monetary metric is an anathma.

> The purpose of copyright as described in the Constitution (promotion of
> the progress of science by securing exclusive rights of writings to their
> respective authors) is to preserve the integrity of a work by ensuring the
> author approves each revision over some limited time (presumably until the
> work has been solidified for posterity before the plagiarists and
> condensors get their hands on it).  It only applies to scientific writings
> because no other kind of writing requires that kind of protection.  For
> example, it is the nature of fine art to feed upon, reinterpret, and
> mimick the culture in which it is produced and, hence, other works of art.
> It is nonsense to believe that authors need monetary incentive to write
> (or filmmakers need monetary incentive to make films or sculptors need
> monetary incentive to sculpt).  Authors write because if they didn't,
> they'd explode.  In fact, I think you'd probably find that work done for
> monetary incentive is sub-par when measured against work done for passion
> or love.

But they do need to eat while doing so...and they do need to have the time to 
do so...hence the reward given for work done in the hope that it may help 
create more work.

> When you start to buy into this idea of monetary incentive (and, more
> abstractly, the concept of "deserving"), you start down a path of greed,
> selfishness, exploitation and other horribly destructive practices that
> can be avoided altogether.

As I stated earlier...it debases.....nothing has value if it does not make 
money....Woody Guthrie was a failure and Britney Spears has enriched the world 
so much more than those poor miserable two who wrote Silent Night...

> Buy their arguments and you give them power... both indirectly and
> directly.  You give them power by showing how influential they are and you
> give them power buy agreeing to the legislation that gives them control of
> money and culture.


> Personally, I think the entire copyright system can be replaced with a
> cryptographic signature system that can verify whether or not a work came
> from a particular author.  (This would also solve the problem of
> historical revision in digital media by news websites and the like.)
> J.

I don't think so....not all copyright is digital...nor should it be.
> -- 
>    -----------------
>      Jeme A Brelin
>     jeme@brelin.net
>    -----------------
>  [cc] counter-copyright
>  http://www.openlaw.org