8 comments

• 

  Timon

  1 year ago

  Tonight I am at a friend's house in a de-facto copyright- free country (which is in all other ways politically corrupt and petty), and somehow she. had discovered one of my favorite artists, Joanna Newsom. FWIW, I got chills. translating a very original, "stolen" song called "Sadie", which includes a definition of art and especially copywritten music in all its complexity:
  
  "This is an old song,
  These are old blues,
  And this is not my tune,
  But it's mine to use."
  reply
• 

  Tim Lee

  1 year ago

  Looks like a great book. I found the introduction a little bit confusing, though. I'm not sure I understand how your "third hand" is distinct from the "left-wing" anti-copyright position. Perhaps it would make sense to add a paragraph fleshing out which common law and technological tools you think make a good substitute for copyright?
  
  Also, you've got an alignment problem in your table of contents. Parts 2 and 3 don't line up properly with part 1.
  reply
• 

  twinkerzzz

  1 year ago

  hhmmm
  rather flowery language - but you avoid a significant issue
  Those of use who soley live, work and generally survive by the
  "use our throats, pens, and presses" are coming from a, yes imperfect, but tangible 'previous context'. We need to be paid.
  
  It seems odd to me that you completly side-step this fundamental pillar - about copyright - which is in itself it's a system which exists to distribute income. Yes it's reformable - and i support the Writers currently on strike in Hollywood - look how theyve missed out on income streams for decades, often living difficult lives on little money, while the big bucks goes to the greedy few.
  
  It just seems odd to me that you ignore this in your very polarised, black and white easy-formula view.
  
  Creating stuff is a way of life - it doesnt just appear. It takes years of unglamourous sweat, often in debt. That's part of how it happens, the path to creative and FINANCIAL stability.
  
  This is the fundamental key issue that needs to be examined by bittorent copyright reformists. In a world of global , free, or virtually-free cultural consumption, how are you going to support the people who choose to dedicate their lives to creating culture ? How do you distribute and generate income ?
  
  This is what matters - This is what has always mattered, this is what get things made.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  twinkerzzz: The fundamental pillar of copyright is the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution which grants a limited monopoly "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Over the years the concept of this "limited" entitlement has evolved into a welfare right.
  
  Furthermore, we have forgotten the concept of promoting the progress of science and useful arts. In theory we could make the case that if a work does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, it is not worthy of copyright protection. (I realize this would be considered unpopular and would also be a slippery slope concept as it would be difficult to define.)
  
  In a free market system you are not entitled to make money. Many small businesses don't make it. If your product (writing) does not sell, too bad. Additionally, assets, in many situations, lose value over time through depreciation. The producers of content are entitled, for a short period of time, to attempt to make money off their work. But once that period expires, that's it.
  reply
• 

  eric

  1 year ago

  twinkerzzz, you creators for profit are going to find yourself increasingly in competition with those who create and distribute their work for the love of their art, and that alone. I can find photos available for free, usable under a Creative Commons license, that outclass the photos I see as illustrations in most magazines. It's a reality that many people have achieved a financial status that allows them to create solely for the desire and joy of it. Their output is occupying more and more of our time, reducing the market for mercenary artists. Fact of life, copyright reform or no.
  
  As for the writer's strike, good luck with that. I view it as more of a relief than anything, given the movies and TV shows I've seen (or should I say "suffered through") in the past couple of years. A break from that is not an unappealing prospect. Perhaps I will have more time to pick up an old classic book, from the public domain or at least the public library.
  reply
• 

  Chris Brand

  1 year ago

  twinkerzzz, what you're missing is that paying creators is not the purpose of copyright. It is merely the means to the end - "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts". It's entirely possibly that that end could be satisfied by different means.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  Tom, I ran across Infringement Nation on TechDirt.
  
  I really like your graphic "Copyright Term v. Copyright Inception12". As a quickie comment, I would like to see more concrete examples.
  reply
• 

  Tom W. Bell

  1 year ago

  Tim: I agree that I could do more to drive home the most unique aspect of my "third handed" approach: We should favor common law protections of expressive works over statutory ones. That's been a major theme in my writings, and something that I plan to discuss in at least a couple of chapters in this book. Thanks for reminding me to put it in the introduction, too.
  
  Twinkerzzz: I don't mean to give the impression that those who create expressive works ought to be left entirely without recourse to the law. In fact, I favor protecting expressive works; I simply favor using common law protections more than statutory ones. Even within the scope of copyright law, I am not a big fan of fair use. You'll see that in chapter 4 of the book, "Fair Use v. Fared Use."
  
  Steve R.: Thanks. I'll try to post that graphic next. I suffered a HD crash recently, though, which has slowed me down a bit.
  reply