Even under copyright authors often started out with short stories.
Authors can and do produce and publish promotional work (free), it is from this they build up an ever larger audience from which the more interested become sponsors.
If the work is always freely copyable, the work virally spreads to promote the author, build their audience, etc.
Eventually the sponsorship becomes self-sustaining, i.e. the author can give up their part-time job.
And let's not forget why 'Making available' was proposed to be an infringement. It was because the RIAA could see that people were advertising their willingness to supply/manufacture illicit copies, but the RIAA couldn't actually pin down evidence of copies actually being manufactured. They could receive them fine.
NB With regard to 'offshore', some jurisdictions may classify downloading unauthorised copies from an offshore server as procuring the importation of contraband, or some such garbage.
I should add that it should be obvious that a copyright infringement ONLY takes place where and when the copy is actually manufactured.
Simply instructing a server to make copies on demand doesn't actually infringe copyright (unless you want to include aiding, abetting, inducement, conspiracy, etc). It's only when the copy is made that copyright is infringed.
And there's an assumption that the copied work is protected by copyright and no license is possessed by either downloader or server owner. If the downloader is the RIAA then they are either the infringer or a licensee, i.e. either the server owner and RIAA are jointly culpable, or neither are culpable given the copy was licensed.
I don't think the downloader authorises the making of a copy anyway. They simply request a copy to be delivered to them on the assumption the server is able to supply an authorised copy. The downloader therefore never infringes copyright, unless they specifically request the making of a copy they know to be illicit instead of the supply of one.
As we know, it is not an infringement to receive illicit/unauthorised copies. Hence the presumption that a downloader is always immune to culpability wrt copyright infringement. This is of course broken by BitTorrent if the downloader is simultaneously an uploader.
Making available would be affixing a CD to a public noticeboard.
On a server there is no physical access. The server HAS to manufacture a copy to send it to the recipient.
So 'Making available' in the online sense is actually the owner of the server instructing it to automatically manufacture copies on demand. Some lawyers would say that the downloader effectively authorises the manufacture of a copy when they request it from the server, and is thus as culpable as the owner of the server who jointly authorises the copy.
Anyway, the number of angels on a pinhead is moot when they don't exist.
Why not have umpteen thousand readers pay the author $20 each to write a book and then everyone can make their own copies for nothing, even then print them on paper, and even sell them in a free market (no monopoly) with no borders?
It seems strange to pay a publisher to 'print' a digital copy for someone to download, when that copy costs nothing to make and the author will soon be conned out of what tiny royalty is permitted them.
How do you tell a child that there is no way of saving the sandcastle they’ve laboured long and hard over from the approaching tide?
Question the assumptions, even the language, and you might get closer to a truer understanding, and realise that a war against piracy is a war against liberty, a war against human nature and natural law.
This is a war that Canute would wage against the tide. The inexorable tide in turn, takes the liberty of eroding the fiat sandcastles of mercantile privilege.
There’s a reason rights holders are so called. These aren’t rights they are born with but rights annulled in all the inhabitants, to be held by a few. In 1709 Queen Anne derogated the right to copy from the individual’s right to liberty, and it is this that publishing corporations purport to hold. But of course, they do not. It is inalienable, and all the privileged hold is the power to persecute the disobedient.
There is no power on Earth that can subjugate the people to refrain from communicating, sharing, developing, copying, learning, or progressing, in order that monopolies may persist unchallenged. Giving them pretexts may smooth the passage of their legislation, but they don’t actually make monopolies do the opposite of what they do. If you want progress or learning you do not put a brake on it – you only do that if you wish to quell or tax an activity.
The only reform that fixes copyright and eliminates piracy is its repeal.
I trust the chap or the police obtained a license from Google to make and distribute copies of this photo?
NB Any license he obtained doesn't necessarily license anyone else. TechDirt evades infringement (in some jurisdictions) by linking to it via imgur.com.
When they realise there's no point in reviewing the layout of deckchairs AGAIN, perhaps they'll think about abolishing copyright and legislating for natural/moral rights alone?
Of course you can record them - assuming you have procured the necessary clearance/licenses to enable you to do so.
Exempting individuals from copyright infringement is completely different to exempting 'non-commercial use'.
1) It's easy to tell the difference between a corporation and a human being (except for corrupt judges).
2) Given all cultural activity involves exchange and commerce is exchange, 'non-commercial exchange' is a bit of an oxymoron. It would become prohibitively expensive to pay to be audited to assure copyright holders that no money was changing hands as a result of otherwise unauthorised copies or performances of copyright works, e.g. "Our flight and full-board accommodation in the Seychelles is a paid expense of our non-commercial performance of the Disney movie X".
E-books, copies of which cannot be copied, but that can be lent, briefly, can be found in the goblin e-bookshop & e-library at the end of the rainbow, along with a load of other rocking horse shit.
Do yourself a favour. Don't buy it.
Pay your favourite authors to write.
Make your own copies. Give some to friends.
Advise the publisher to find another job - the market for copies has ended.
If you want a copy printed, pay a printer to print one.
Professionals are free to produce and submit a professional logo.
Serious people are free to produce and submit a serious logo.
Professionals who want to be take seriously are free to produce and submit a seriously professional logo.
Given that no-one wants to come across as sloppy and one dimensional, I doubt that anyone's going to use the logo I submitted. Indeed, I hoped it would spur people to submit logos they'd be happy to adorn their work with. :-)
Unfortunately, it's not actually possible to "just don't use copyright". If only it were that simple...
Well, it can be simple, just not for anyone. It simply requires the government to repeal copyright.
Before that happens though, you need the people's consensus that copyright is an unethical anachronism that should have been abolished along with slavery.
When everyone (not just software engineers) realises that they should be free to engage with, share, and build upon their own culture, then copyright might just get abolished.
It's publishing corporations vs the people. The wealthy and powerful vs the numerous and downtrodden masses. Such a confrontation can be forestalled, but if it isn't you end up with civil war. The former is preferable.
Do you mean the specific logo, or the idea of a flower as a symbol?
If the former, you are free to improve it. If the latter, I'd be interested to read your views as to what would be a more readily recognisable symbol to denote 'free culture' or cultural liberty.
Copyleft licensing worked for software primarily because:
Licensing legalese can be as convoluted as software (though law!=logic) and coders could discern the copyleft principle.
Software is fundamentally derivative – if the original author isn’t modifying it, another one is.
For the rest of culture, artists and the artistic process are often a little bit more organic in nature.
Until copyright (and patent) is abolished there are only those two things the artist can do: attach something to the art that persuades the recipient they won’t end up in jail like Emmanuel Nimley if they point their iPhone at it, and ideally make it clear that this isn’t a one-off act of mercenary expediency, that the artist is indeed committed to liberating their audience (will neither sue, nor enable them to be sued, for taking liberties prohibited by copyright).
This is one of the reasons why I created The Free Culture Logo – a way of indicating that a work of art was ‘free culture’ – no ifs or buts. Moreover, even the logo itself is free culture, just an ideogram free to evolve to the taste of each artist that touched it. The fclogo site is even a wiki. Just how free can you get?
Alan Sillitoe had a pretty good grasp of the distinction between effective security measures and theatre (aka totalitarian repression). I recommend Travels in Nihilon if you want your eyes opened.
The ridiculous thing about it all is that the 9/11 'pilots' would have passed through fine. They weren't carrying guns or explosives now were they? If they took the effort to learn to fly jets they would have taken the effort to learn karate (if box cutters had been prohibited), or would have purchased a nice glass bottle of Whisky in the airport.
The best thing to do is to put everyone's luggage on a robot controlled plane, and all the people on another, which is configured as a nudist sauna/massage parlour.
Another song Dan Bull might consider there's a necessity for, is a "Free Emmanuel Nimley!" song - he's currently doing 6 months in prison for pointing his iPhone at a cinema screen.
It's one thing to have your PC confiscated, or your cultural liberty constrained, but it's far more serious to lose your liberty entirely. Ask Nelson Mandela.
On the post: UK Ebook Seller Refuses Foreign Customers' Money
Re: Re: A better way
Authors can and do produce and publish promotional work (free), it is from this they build up an ever larger audience from which the more interested become sponsors.
If the work is always freely copyable, the work virally spreads to promote the author, build their audience, etc.
Eventually the sponsorship becomes self-sustaining, i.e. the author can give up their part-time job.
On the post: UK Court Says Making Available Online Only Happens Where The Server Is Located
Don't forget why
On the post: UK Court Says Making Available Online Only Happens Where The Server Is Located
Don't forget import
On the post: UK Court Says Making Available Online Only Happens Where The Server Is Located
Re: Advertising willingness to copy
Simply instructing a server to make copies on demand doesn't actually infringe copyright (unless you want to include aiding, abetting, inducement, conspiracy, etc). It's only when the copy is made that copyright is infringed.
And there's an assumption that the copied work is protected by copyright and no license is possessed by either downloader or server owner. If the downloader is the RIAA then they are either the infringer or a licensee, i.e. either the server owner and RIAA are jointly culpable, or neither are culpable given the copy was licensed.
I don't think the downloader authorises the making of a copy anyway. They simply request a copy to be delivered to them on the assumption the server is able to supply an authorised copy. The downloader therefore never infringes copyright, unless they specifically request the making of a copy they know to be illicit instead of the supply of one.
As we know, it is not an infringement to receive illicit/unauthorised copies. Hence the presumption that a downloader is always immune to culpability wrt copyright infringement. This is of course broken by BitTorrent if the downloader is simultaneously an uploader.
On the post: UK Court Says Making Available Online Only Happens Where The Server Is Located
Advertising willingness to copy
On a server there is no physical access. The server HAS to manufacture a copy to send it to the recipient.
So 'Making available' in the online sense is actually the owner of the server instructing it to automatically manufacture copies on demand. Some lawyers would say that the downloader effectively authorises the manufacture of a copy when they request it from the server, and is thus as culpable as the owner of the server who jointly authorises the copy.
Anyway, the number of angels on a pinhead is moot when they don't exist.
On the post: UK Ebook Seller Refuses Foreign Customers' Money
A better way
It seems strange to pay a publisher to 'print' a digital copy for someone to download, when that copy costs nothing to make and the author will soon be conned out of what tiny royalty is permitted them.
On the post: Is WIPO Really The Right Organization To Fix Copyright?
A War on Piracy is a War on Liberty
Question the assumptions, even the language, and you might get closer to a truer understanding, and realise that a war against piracy is a war against liberty, a war against human nature and natural law.
This is a war that Canute would wage against the tide. The inexorable tide in turn, takes the liberty of eroding the fiat sandcastles of mercantile privilege.
There’s a reason rights holders are so called. These aren’t rights they are born with but rights annulled in all the inhabitants, to be held by a few. In 1709 Queen Anne derogated the right to copy from the individual’s right to liberty, and it is this that publishing corporations purport to hold. But of course, they do not. It is inalienable, and all the privileged hold is the power to persecute the disobedient.
There is no power on Earth that can subjugate the people to refrain from communicating, sharing, developing, copying, learning, or progressing, in order that monopolies may persist unchallenged. Giving them pretexts may smooth the passage of their legislation, but they don’t actually make monopolies do the opposite of what they do. If you want progress or learning you do not put a brake on it – you only do that if you wish to quell or tax an activity.
The only reform that fixes copyright and eliminates piracy is its repeal.
On the post: Did Google Street View Catch A Car Thief In The Act?
Copyright license?
NB Any license he obtained doesn't necessarily license anyone else. TechDirt evades infringement (in some jurisdictions) by linking to it via imgur.com.
YJMV
On the post: Hollywood's Strategy For The Future: Pretending The Government Can Save Them
VoDo
On the post: Journalism Professor To Lead UK's Copyright Review?
Reviewing the White Elephant
On the post: Lessig Asks WIPO To Overhaul Copyright; Not Designed For When Every Use Is A Copy
Re: Re: Re: Re-arranging deck chairs
On the post: Lessig Asks WIPO To Overhaul Copyright; Not Designed For When Every Use Is A Copy
Re: Re: Re: Re-arranging deck chairs
Exempting individuals from copyright infringement is completely different to exempting 'non-commercial use'.
1) It's easy to tell the difference between a corporation and a human being (except for corrupt judges).
2) Given all cultural activity involves exchange and commerce is exchange, 'non-commercial exchange' is a bit of an oxymoron. It would become prohibitively expensive to pay to be audited to assure copyright holders that no money was changing hands as a result of otherwise unauthorised copies or performances of copyright works, e.g. "Our flight and full-board accommodation in the Seychelles is a paid expense of our non-commercial performance of the Disney movie X".
On the post: Kindle To Let You Lend Books, Just Like A Real Book... Except Not
Non-wet water is sold because morons buy it
Do yourself a favour. Don't buy it.
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cultural diversity
Serious people are free to produce and submit a serious logo.
Professionals who want to be take seriously are free to produce and submit a seriously professional logo.
Given that no-one wants to come across as sloppy and one dimensional, I doubt that anyone's going to use the logo I submitted. Indeed, I hoped it would spur people to submit logos they'd be happy to adorn their work with. :-)
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re: PD
Well, it can be simple, just not for anyone. It simply requires the government to repeal copyright.
Before that happens though, you need the people's consensus that copyright is an unethical anachronism that should have been abolished along with slavery.
When everyone (not just software engineers) realises that they should be free to engage with, share, and build upon their own culture, then copyright might just get abolished.
It's publishing corporations vs the people. The wealthy and powerful vs the numerous and downtrodden masses. Such a confrontation can be forestalled, but if it isn't you end up with civil war. The former is preferable.
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Re: Re: Cultural diversity
If the former, you are free to improve it. If the latter, I'd be interested to read your views as to what would be a more readily recognisable symbol to denote 'free culture' or cultural liberty.
On the post: Creative Commons' Branding Confusion
Cultural diversity
- Licensing legalese can be as convoluted as software (though law!=logic) and coders could discern the copyleft principle.
- For the rest of culture, artists and the artistic process are often a little bit more organic in nature.
Until copyright (and patent) is abolished there are only those two things the artist can do: attach something to the art that persuades the recipient they won’t end up in jail like Emmanuel Nimley if they point their iPhone at it, and ideally make it clear that this isn’t a one-off act of mercenary expediency, that the artist is indeed committed to liberating their audience (will neither sue, nor enable them to be sued, for taking liberties prohibited by copyright).Software is fundamentally derivative – if the original author isn’t modifying it, another one is.
This is one of the reasons why I created The Free Culture Logo – a way of indicating that a work of art was ‘free culture’ – no ifs or buts. Moreover, even the logo itself is free culture, just an ideogram free to evolve to the taste of each artist that touched it. The fclogo site is even a wiki. Just how free can you get?
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Alan Sillitoe
On the post: Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan
Ridiculous
The best thing to do is to put everyone's luggage on a robot controlled plane, and all the people on another, which is configured as a nudist sauna/massage parlour.
On the post: Death Of ACTA
How long must we sing this song?
It's one thing to have your PC confiscated, or your cultural liberty constrained, but it's far more serious to lose your liberty entirely. Ask Nelson Mandela.
Next >>