Larry Lessig Challenges ASCAP Boss To A Debate Over Whether Or Not Creative Commons Undermines Copyright
from the throwdown dept
We've already written a couple of times about ASCAP's bizarre anti-artist decision, as part of its fundraising campaign, to falsely imply that Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge are seeking to undermine copyright. So far, about all this has done is piss off a bunch of ASCAP members who actually like these groups (especially those who use Creative Commons). Larry Lessig has now written a response, where he points out that Creative Commons relies on copyright and doesn't seek to force anyone to use it at all. It just offers artists more choices in how they license their music. More interesting, however, is that Lessig then challenges ASCAP's president, Paul Williams, to a debate on the topic:So here's my challenge, ASCAP President Paul Williams: Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate. I'm a big fan of yours, and If you'll grant me the permission, I'd even be willing to sing one of your songs (or not) if you'll accept my challenge of a debate. We could ask the New York Public Library to host the event. I am willing to do whatever I can to accommodate your schedule.So, will ASCAP and Williams -- who has been on an anti-Lessig rampage for a while now -- step up and actually debate? And if Williams agrees to such a debate, will he finally stop making false claims about these groups?
Let's meet and address these perceived differences with honesty and good faith. No doubt we have disagreements (for instance, I love rainy days, and Mondays rarely get me down). But on the issues that your organization and mine care about, there should be no difference worthy of an attack.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, debate, larry lessig, paul williams
Companies: ascap, creative commons, eff, public knowledge
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's like you can't see past the grammar to the actual words (this is a bad case, of course)
You idiot(s) have been hitting every case of someone missing an "I". It really doesn't distract from the words and at least it ISN'T IN ALL CAPS LIKE IT COULD BE.
Get over your fucking self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASCAP are chickens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUTPLUG are cows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
there really isnt much for mr lessig to argue here, although i am sure that the professor could go on for hours and hours about it.
oh, mike, why did you mention that lessig is part of eff and public knowledge, yet you failed to mention that an actual poster on your site the other day was a member of the pirate party? why the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Right! Just to be sure, let's abolish the public domain as well, in case some people get confused.
Oh, no wait. That's not how this is supposed to work.
"oh, mike, why did you mention that lessig is part of eff and public knowledge, yet you failed to mention that an actual poster on your site the other day was a member of the pirate party? why the difference?"
And you write in all lowercase, but I don't see Mike take jabs at how you choose to express yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
CARE TO POINT OUT THE STUDIES OR EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THIS? OKAY, THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
http://www.timleeland.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
So, you got it backwards. Copyright is undermining the commons, not the other way round. It always has been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
There is always the remote chance that the car you bought from the car dealer was stolen by the car dealer. Do you know for absolute certain it wasn't? Lets ban car sales to prevent such a scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Let's say that I want to play music in my store, and it's music I own. CC, Copyleft and Public Domain, assuming those are the only systems, say that I can play them publicly as freely as I want.
Copyright, apparently, says I have to pay even when I don't play the copyrighted stuff, to multiple organizations that I may or may not know about, and I will still run the risk of being fined even if I am in compliance of everything.
If you want things to be less confusing, get rid of the copyright that requires jumping through hoops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
If you want things to be less confusing, get rid of the copyright that requires jumping through hoops."
That sentiment is being expressed more and more. It is why the usage of the Creative Commons or something like it will continue expanding. There is a confusing set of rules and self entitled organizations, their hands out stretched, reaching for your wallet. As is discussed here convinience and simplicity, oft-trumps bother and complexity. Or ... in the end the simplest and cheapest system tends to win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Why can't we look? Why shouldn't we look. What do you mean by without looking? Isn't the whole idea behind CC for us to look?
"but on the newer stuff, you would be guessing."
You mean if we didn't look? Well, why wouldn't we look? We should look for the license and if it's CC we freely download. What's wrong with that?
If you mean did someone falsely release it under a CC license? That causes no more confusion then the possibility that a newspaper article was copied by someone other than the copyright holder. How do I know the newspaper that I have doesn't contain infringing content? How do I know those who sold me the newspaper or those who produced it didn't infringe? Or any book for that matter? Do I know for certain? Without looking? If I buy a CD from the store how do I know for certain that songs from that CD don't infringe on someone else's work? That the people who put the CD together didn't infringe? How do I know with absolute certainty that any content I receive is properly authorized and that the entity that created and later sold it didn't in fact infringe? With this logic I should never buy newspapers, books, magazines, music; all of this should be banned because in all of these instances there is the potential that someone might sell me something against the will of the true copyright holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Thanks, for playing, though!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
"no studies required. do you know for absolutely certainly, without looking, if all of the content on your machine is copyright, creative commons, copyleft, or public domain? "
Now sit down and listen. No talking and no picking your nose.
Copyright is copyright, creative commons a license of copyright material, "copyleft" (assuming you mean GPL and other assorted open source licenses) is a licence on copyright material and public domain (say the works of Aristotle or The Gospel of Mark) is the public domain.
Creative Commons and "copyleft" are licenses stating the terms that one can use the copyright material legally. Nothing more and nothing less. "Commercial" copyright can do the same thing while often charging exorbitant fees. It's all copyright.
Please be prepared to include this on your essay of "What I Did on My Summer Vacation" to enlighten and amuse the rest of your remedial Grade 3 class.
Now you can pick your nose and chew it.
Dismissed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Now, get out of the cat litter because the sandbox is over there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Not quite.
Works that are Copyleft don't come with a pack of vicious attack dogs. That's a very important distinction. It also leads to some serious practical benefits for more functional works.
Something with Flint's name on it is very different than something with Ellison's name on it.
This is why ASCAP is scared and warming up the FUD machine.
People (and even artists) might decide to choose the lower BS alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
"Works that are Copyleft don't come with a pack of vicious attack dogs. That's a very important distinction. It also leads to some serious practical benefits for more functional works."
The GPL has a legal folks who enforce the license and the copyright on the software code itself and it's batting something like 1.000 doing that.
I'm also hard pressed to say the work licensed as open source or Creative Commons et cetera isn't functional or, somehow, is less functional than other licenses. That's value judgement and you're as free as I am to make that judgement.
Neither of us, however, is entitled to say that the copyright on that material is somehow less enforceable because it's licensed as something other than a traditional commercial license.
Now, then, you'll be staying after class for a week!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
I knew it - heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Wow. Statements like have convinced me that copyright supporters are a bunch of lying scoundrels and the best thing we could do would be to just get rid of copyrights completely. The sooner the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Um. I didn't.
Reading comprehension is a really wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Well, they certainly created doubt in your mind - since you can't grasp that Creative Commons, copyleft, GPL, and so on are all forms of copyright.
The notion that copyright ever was about "there being really one system" is utterly ridiculous.
this could lead the public to make false assumptions about copyright work, or allow people to create such false assumptions by illegal adding creative commons attribution to a work.
I have no idea what "false assumptions" you think the existence of a legitimate form of copyright could give to the public. It might get them to think about the issue though, and I'm betting that's what you don't want to happen.
And CC does not allow people to "create such false assumptions by illegal [sic] adding creative commons attribution to a work." If you are the rights holder, adding a CC license is not "illegal" in any way. If you aren't the rights holder, putting a CC license on that work is just like any other form of copyfraud.
Clearly, what you're against is for copyright holders to license their "intellectual property" in any way that you don't approve of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fundementally opposed objectives.
The FSF in particular is very open in their disdain for Copyright and their interest in using the system against itself.
The Creative Commons of course is far less extreme. However, they too seem to understand that the point of any published work is to be published as widely as possible.
Propagation is more important than payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fundementally opposed objectives.
No, copyleft relies on copyright:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
The FSF recognizes that the public domain (the opposite of copyright, if you will) doesn't accomplish all their goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
and that is a good thing because copyright is evil.
"Be not overcome of evil - but overcome evil with good".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lessig would wipe the floor with him
Just curious where this occurs - perhaps you could point out where Mike does this?
After you read the article 3-4 times - just stop and save yourself some time - it's not there.
I rarely agree with your comments but this one is just a flat out lie and accusation. Please go "cry wolf" elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because if they are near, you can bet the RIAA scum will not debate anything in public.
Just like the French politicians scum passed a draconian law and now are backtracking because of the public reaction. They want to be re-elected.
What I find amusing is that France can end up like Japan.
Japan passed some pretty impressive laws and all that talk, but nobody noticed the lack of "punishment" clauses on the law, it just say it is illegal, but the courts basically can't punish anyone caught.
The U.S. pushes and people go around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... if you are planning simultaneous tea bagging all around the country, you're going to need a Dick Armey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? If that were true America(capital A), would not presently be sliding toward an Authoritarian Government, a Constitution without meaning and a crushing debt that will collapse the economy and the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89860/french-ump-members-having-second-thoughts-on-thre e-strikes/
Not to mention the bribe scandal of the chihuahua they call president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
Moderate and Facilitate Mike ,, and you will get more "quality debate",,--- and more good traffic & ad clicks .
-----------
I really do not understand why you Mike let threads here fall into the gutter. How does that help a good public policy debate? What purpose does it serve? Entertainment for posters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
I did ten years ago- still active -- see my profile..
but I just do not have the time in life to accept and moderate comments there ,, other then comment by email-- please do comment of you wish. If it is worthwhile I post and reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
Free speech is such a pain in the ass isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
Say, aren't you the one who screams "WRONG!" whenever someone cites a fact you don't like, accuses rational debaters of using "pirate logic," and told me I'm not a "real musician" because I don't believe in strict copyright laws?
I guess what you're saying is that Mike should ban you. Personally I wouldn't go that far, but it's his call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
Mr. Israelites recent speech identified 10 specific areas where the believes that certain of these groups are engaged in activities that in his view are inconsistent with current US law.
Clearly the EFF, CC, PK and other similar groups are not anti-copyright per se. Equally clearly, however, is that their views are based upon a philosphy that bumps up against the philosophy held by at least the ASCAP and the NMPA. EFF et al. place a very heavy emphasis on the First Amendment, but in doing so are out on a limb given that the Supreme Court has decided their view of copyright law advocates a position regarding fair use that would swallow up copyright law as a whole and render in many respects the remaining portions of copyright law superfluous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate."
He never claimed they were "engaged in activities" outside the current law. He claimed that they held positions that were "radically" outside current US law. Most of those positions are not all that radical, a few are actually law right now, and the rest he misrepresents.
Techdirt has a detailed article about it here.
He does not mention Creative Commons, by the way.
the Supreme Court has decided their view of copyright law advocates a position regarding fair use that would swallow up copyright law as a whole and render in many respects the remaining portions of copyright law superfluous.
Can you tell me precisely where the Supreme Court said anything even remotely close to this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd love to see this debate too...
The beauty of Creative Commons (though I'd consider it to be incomplete in its current form) is that it rejects opacity in favor of simplicity and the ability to be understood by lay people. Last time I heard people from ASCAP and RIAA try to defend their existing systems (against the chief counsel of YouTube on a panel discussion a few months ago), they hurt their own cause by failing to agree amongst themselves on arcana such as when a server cache copy requires a license.
The average content creator neither knows nor cares about such things - she just wants to get paid. Systems that survive on inertia and inscrutability are always ripe for replacement by more efficient and transparent alternatives to which people can gravitate. Unfortunately, the EFF's proposed idea of a "voluntary Internet tax" fails most of these criteria (in addition to being both commercially unworkable and oxymoronic).
Still, I'd love to see this debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd love to see this debate too...
It's long past due that folks like Paul Williams actually did defend their positions in a debate with Lessig. It might actually come to Mr Williams mind that he's very wrong in his statements about this. Or he may be put in the position of having to admit that what he's talking about is a perceived threat to ASCAP's money collection machine though I'm not sure that's demonstrated anywhere.
It's getting sadder to see so much confusion over what copyright is and what licensing is which is the source of Mr William's agrument and not copyright itself.
Of course, I'm expecting a bit much from such a pedestrian composer who certainly never borrowed as much as a riff from another composition or from the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those two links are the same. I think you meant your first link to link to the first article, not the second one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Williams Is Not the Person to Debate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paul Williams Is Not the Person to Debate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]