If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
from the put-the-weapon-down dept
Automatic Copyright is sort of like issuing everyone a gun. I've met many authors and artists who insist their restrictive licenses aren't anti-fan, because they wouldn't actually enforce them.
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: automatic copyright, copyright, enforcement
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thank you Nina, usually I don't care too much for these two, art being subjective and all that but I like this one.
*makes 2 bags of popcorn to watch trolls get all twisted in knots*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Assume that they're right...
Grant their premise, just for one moment. Assume that if it's not enforced, that they're not anti-fan.
Now - how long does copyright last again? Something about "life of the author plus XX years"? What happens when they die - do they guarantee that the license won't be enforced?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/08/24/market-research/
Just checking :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get Real
Copyright is important, it merely has a changed role in this new era.
And STOP thinking artists are the enemy. The number of DIY musicians like myself who earn nothing from music but happily do it for the love and passion of expression, far outweighs the Rihannas and Metallicas of the world.
The RIAA et. al. and big labels in general are the enemy. Get it straight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
The implication being that automatic gun rights is eequivalent to automatic copyright is problematic, because copyright unlike
the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment is not a constitutional right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If art was food copyright would be the guns Somali pirates use to get all the food and only distribute to those that they like the others starve to death.
Copyright is an exclusion tool like a gun is to enforcement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
I don't see the problem there either, if your art was a pizza and another guy made the same pizza as you and sold it where is the problem?
Until the 80's people outright stole from each others and made fortunes, people apparently didn't mind that much at that point only later this crap of "OMG he is making money with something I did it first but wasn't able to monetize it"
I find that very disturbing. Everybody should rip the fruits from their work even if that work is based on the work of others, if one guy have the trouble to make a copy, package and then go sale it on the streets by himself he should get the money I don't see the problem with that.
I don't even care if the big labels make money out of some poor soul that couldn't finance his way to fame, that was before the internet today the plain field is different money for distribution is no a problem, small or big everybody can compete on the same playing field now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guns don't kill people...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
So you're against force except when you're for it.
Gotcha.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
If somebody wants a monopoly from the government, they should have to pay handsomely for it and conform to bureaucratic requirements. No payment or failing to correctly satisfy the bureaucratic requirements means no monopoly for you, no ifs or buts and no second chances. Once something enters the public domain, it stays there forever. There should be a government-run website where every single one of these monopolies is documented, complete with its expiry date. It should be easy for any member of the public to search the database, then for any given work, be able to find out what is/is not permitted and when the work enters the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CC BY-NA 3.0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CC BY-NA 3.0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get Real
WTF? Yes, yes it is, just like the rest of the bill of rights.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
One doesn't necessarily need to do away with copyright. Just changing the default to public domain or some liberal CC license and making it possible for creators to *actively* request more protection (eg. only allowing noncommerical use like in your case) and requiring people who receive such protection to state it explicitly when publishing their work would be a big improvement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Automatic copyright
Is that really a good thing? Used to be to get a copyright you had to register the work with the copyright office, which tends to separate the trivial from works that actually were worth the cost and effort, and the copyright only lasted for, what, a couple decades? I forget exactly but it wasn't 70 years past the bloody heat death of the bloody universe.* With today's laws this message I'm writing is protected so long that probably nobody reading it will live to see it enter the public domain. Why? I certainly don't value it that much. It's good for a day or two, then it falls off the edge. The most I can hope for is that somebody finds it insightful enough that it gets an honorable mention this weekend and it lives on for a few extra days. I certainly wouldn't expend any effort to copyright it. I don't want it copyrighted. That's severe overkill, like putting an armed guard around a blade of grass on my lawn.**
That kind of overkill tends to trivialize the value of copyrighting. Everything is copyrighted, no matter how worthless. And making it effortless tends to further devalue it in the eyes of most people. Hey, it's free, how much can it be worth? Right?
I'm sure there will be plenty of people who miss my point, just as there were many that missed Nina's point. To those I say: willful ignorance is worse than ordinary ignorance.
Instead of trying to argue why Nina is wrong, please go try to figure out why she may be right. Then even if you still disagree, at least your arguments will make sense.
*That's called "hyperbole". It's exaggeration for effect. (Though in this case the effect is mostly me letting off some anger and frustration without resorting to abuse.) Please don't take it literally.
**Note: not a car analogy. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
Please stop thinking in absolutes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
You might already know this, but I feel I should say it for those who don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
Unfortunate linebreak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get Real
I include on top of the copyright a Creative Commons license meaning everyone can download my music for free and share it, as long as its use is non commercial and attribution is given. If I didn't have a copyright for my music it would void the CC license meaning whoever the hell wants can make money off my hard work and not even tell people who created it.
Basically, he doesn't want to share it with the world. He doesn't want his music to reach new audiences. He believes that if you ever need to profit off of his work, then that should be stigmatized.
In a way, it's the same ideas that the RIAA are saying. The only monetary value someone can get out of a digital good, is that which he thinks up. In the past that has actually limited the CC license. If you own a coffeeshop and a local musician puts up a CC-license that says ND, would you bother using him or music that you get cheaper elsewhere?
Sadly enough, by showing us his reasoning, it's not a spit in his face...
It directly applies to his situation.
I find that the worst problem of copyright in general. People don't think "How can I gain an audience?", they instead think "How can I get paid through my govn. monopoly?" in not as many words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get Real
Please don't be mean. Understanding why nc maybe isn't such a good idea after all takes time. Our friend Angus is fundamentally on our side so don't knock him.
Personally I see the existence of the various different types of CC licenses as a plus - because it maximises the number of people who will be involved in free culture. Let's live and let live!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
...but hopefully not his blood, sweat & tears ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get Real
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get Real
Oh yes, I do not enforce copyright (unless you try to make any money, use my name for credit, or use my trademarks).
Last time I looked this was called a "restriction" requiring what the "anti-permission" culture eschews, to wit, requesting permission.
Here I am, a copyright lawyer, who practices photography, and use the following "highly restrictive" language:
"Please feel free to modify and/or use these uploads for any purpose whatsoever (commercial or personal, for-profit or not-for-profit, for print, for web, for "print on demand", for web templates for sale or distribution, for "whatever", etc.) You do not need to contact me before or after using an image, though a note is always appreciated if you have the opportunity to do so. Similarly, attribution is nice, but not necessary."
It seems to me that the author of this article embraces "free culture", but only up to a point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get Real
There were NO fees involved, outside of postage.
After the first term of 28 years, you had to apply for a renewal. If you didn't, the material became public domain.
Even with renewal, the material became PD after 56 years, which seems extremely reasonable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I Don't Plan To Be Famous For At Least One Hundred Years After I Die
So be brave and persevere, fellow sharers of life's spiritual children. the RIAA can kick sand in our face, talk about us behind our backs, and bully the faint of heart, but we still have a few champions out there. Chivalry is not dead, and it is not entirely subscription based yet. You can also find my little songs on Kiddidles by the way. Nice people, and very good to our future generations!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get Real
No, let's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
Wrong. If you want to link to his work from your website,facebook, whatever feel free. Just let everybody know who the artist is.
Want to burn his music to a CD and sell them on the street? NO dice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
I'll disagree with some of the other commentators here, if you don't want to release your work to commercial use for free, that is your choice (even though I also think there are problems with NC). The important thing to me is that you as an artist/musician choose not to criminalize your fans for sharing your work and their love of your work. That's the most important step for an artist to take, and you took it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get Real
OK I'm confused
Actually I didn't mean we can't disagree - even argue - but rather we shouldn't do so in a way that might become a stumbling block to those just starting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I Don't Plan To Be Famous For At Least One Hundred Years After I Die
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get Real
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
No, they maximize the number of people involved with Creative Commons. They may be reducing the number of people involved with Free Culture. Creative Commons is not a Free Culture organization, and has no mandate to promote Free Culture. They do, however, offer some Free Culture licenses along with their more popular, more restrictive ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get Real
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get Real
Does he pay anything to Akira Toriyama or Funimation for using that? No. Does the proceeds of the album go to anyone related to Toriyama or benefit them greatly? No. So basically, what I get from this is "You can't make a profit off my work, but I'm going to make a profit off of someone else's."
Sheesh...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get Real
You don't change laws showing that they work, you change laws showing how bad they can become and this is likely the most scaring thing that happened to copyright since the end of monopolies by force.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
According to some people that is between 50% and 90% of the population already.
The USA is made of bad guys mainly apparently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
Oh, so you're one of *those* artists.
There are so many of us that support the free culture movement and file sharing, me being one of them.
You certainly don't sound like it.
To say automatic copyright gives me a gun is spitting in my face.
To someone living in a society where the copyright gun is being constantly pointed at *my* head, to say that it isn't is spitting in *my* face.
If I didn't have a copyright for my music it would void the CC license meaning whoever the hell wants can make money off my hard work and not even tell people who created it.
That sounds like you're in it for the money and are one of those people who think that the only way to make money is to keep other people from making money. And I bet that very little of your music is actually completely original. Of course, that's probably OK for *you*, right?
Copyright is important, it merely has a changed role in this new era.
It's important to those in the copyright industry, that is. And its role in "this new era" is to create a permission society where you can't do anything without permission.
And STOP thinking artists are the enemy.
Who said they are? STOP thinking that all artists are part of the copyright industry.
...musicians like myself who earn nothing from music but happily do it for the love and passion of expression...
And the money right? If you really were happily doing it for "the love and passion of expression" then you wouldn't be going around the copyright gun at people. What a load.
The RIAA et. al. and big labels in general are the enemy.
Copyright is bad, no matter how big or small you are. You don't get a free pass just because you aren't on a big label.
Get it straight.
Indeed. And abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
But if they didn't point guns at you, you might rob them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get Real
Experience informs me that the answer is likely "never", but then again there are exceptions. Are you one of the exceptions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
And yes, I make my living as a creative person, from the fruits of my own creative work. Creative people are innovators, and we don't need the government's protection in the form of "intellectual property" laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Automatic Copyright is sort of like issuing everyone a gun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC said: "You seem to be squarely in the anti-copyright camp. While it does appear to me that you are about as anti-copyright as they come ... just how many times has copyright been asserted against you personally?"
LOL, I'm guessing you've never Googled Nina Paley (then again, why would you?). You see, AC, the reason the author is the darling of the free culture/anti-copyright movement is because she made an animated movie based on music without bothering to clear the music first, and threw a hissy fit when the rights-holder dared demand she pay what she considered an unreasonable amount for the rights. After a lengthy PR campaign she complied, and now rails against the evil that is copyright any chance she gets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
given an automatic copyright system, anything I write that's long and uniquely worded enough to be considered original, for instance this post, is automatically granted copyright and cannot be used without my permission. maybe one day I decide to write a short poem in a post, for instance, to get my point across. Techdirt doesn't offer offer me an option to apply a CC license when I post, though, so I am automatically granted the default copyright protection when I post it, whether I want it or not. obviously the solution would be to write in my post that people can use it, blah, blah, but I'd rather have people who want copyrights for their works have to actively get them than for everything to just be protected under copyright law.
there are already enough bogus lawsuits without people suing each other over who came up with an idea first and neither having any way to prove it because there's no record of them filing for copyright, since they didn't have to, they were granted it automatically.
if people don't want to be "robbed of [their] work by Big Media" then they should apply for copyright before releasing it. that's their personal responsibility as the creator of the work. if they're too stupid to do that and they put their executed work out unprotected then they have to deal with the consequences when someone else makes money off the same execution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
H2.64
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Everything
I won't quote everything but this one is a real piece of work:
"That sounds like you're in it for the money and are one of those people who think that the only way to make money is to keep other people from making money. And I bet that very little of your music is actually completely original. Of course, that's probably OK for *you*, right?"
Actually my music is entirely original and I DO do it for the love of it. I'm a gardener, that's how I make my money. I barely get by and I spend most of my free time creating music with skills that I taught myself, guitar, piano, software that I have bought, and skills picked up in a Sound Engineering course.
I ask for nothing back from my hard work, but am highly thankful for the broad audience I have acquired by using a CC license to make explicit the fact that you can download and share my music for free. Have a look at the main site where I began distributing my music for free: http://www.last.fm/music/the+peach+tree and tell me I don't like reaching a broad audience over making money.
Also, the Dragonball GT cover on one of my albums is hardly different from someone using the character, Goku, as an avatar in a forum or anything. It hardly adds to the "value" of my music even if there was a value. The music is free so I am not profiting off Funimation or anything. I support sharing. The reason I don't just let my music loose into the public domain is because then Universal or whatever could simply take one of my songs, my pride and joy and the result of years of hard work, brand it with any old artist they like, and sell it.
How would you feel if you heard a song "by Lady Gaga" on the radio when you knew it was yours? And then see her CD in stores with your track on it and people buying it, all the profits going to Lady Gaga and her label?
The CC restrictions are just asserting the bare-bones rights I need to make sure that:
a) People know that I wrote and performed the song and
b) Big corporations don't profit off my work.
Whilst also freeing up the restrictions of the basic copyright that would exist if not for CC, ie. the restriction on sharing.
Educational use, private use, even public use is all allowable under my CC licensing as long as I protect the above two things, which are pretty obvious and important.
On a final note, I advise you to read the FREE (Creative Commons Licensed) book entitled "Free Culture", by the founder of both the free culture movement AND Creative Commons, Lawrence Lessig. It can be found at http://www.free-culture.cc/ it's short and a great read and shows just how bloody stupid most of the negative responses to my post are.
Thank you to those who have defended me, complimented me, and generally said I'm on the right track.
Regards,
Angus
[ link to this | view in thread ]