What's troubling is that you appear to be surprised that a corporation let alone a human being shouldn't be able to interfere in anyone's speech.
Just because you've permitted people on your premises that doesn't mean they become your puppets or playthings. You can eject them, but that doesn't mean you can do what you like to them if they remain, e.g. gag them, punish them if they sing, get them to stand on one leg, etc.
Privacy is the natural right to exclude others, not to have power over them as if property.
Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
We were discussing copyright and licenses in the context of intellectual work.
Even so, a driving license restores the liberty someone would have (had the state not suspended it) to drive a vehicle on certain land (public highways).
A (copyright) license is not a privilege, it restores liberty suspended (by copyright).
A license is not an agreement - others do not need to agree to have their liberty restored by the party privileged by copyright.
If you don't hold copyright over an intellectual work there is nothing about it you have to license. So, no, a copyright license is not independent of copyright.
Well sure, absolutely. It could easily happen that an artist ends up with more from fans direct than the publishers would have permitted in royalties.
However, I find I have an uphill struggle trying to persuade anyone that an artist's fans will pay them even a penny. People are so easily confused between copies being free and performance & recordings not being free. So it's easier to keep the equations like this:
BEFORE:
1,000 fans buy copies for $10,000.
99,000 punters buy copies for $990,000.
Label keeps 99%=$990,000 (wages, costs, overheads, profit, etc.).
Artist gets $10,000.
AFTER:
1,000 fans pay commission of $10,000.
Billions of punters get free copies (copyleft).
Label is disintermediated.
Artist gets $10,000.
Remove the crap (copyright, monopoly protected prices, greedy publisher, highly inefficient service) and you're left with a far simpler exchange: the artist's intellectual work for their fans' commission.
You can share in paying a commission as well as in receiving one.
Who else is going to pay the artist except those that have always paid them? Their fans.
If you remove 100% of the costs of distribution, you should expect to remove the 99% fee traditionally claimed by the publisher. Now the keen fans pay 1%. The artist gets paid the same. The now disintermediated and redundant publisher ends up with nothing. That's why it's the publisher (copyright business model) who's doomed, not the artist nor the audience.
This helps legitimise the use of efficient distribution technology so it's good for the likes of BitTorrent, Pirate Bay, etc. It's also a toe in the water to encourage others that this is the future for delivering one's art to one's audience.
The only thing that's still waiting to be fully developed is technology for the exchange in the other direction: sharing the artist's commission among the fans gladly wanting to incentivise their work.
I posted this comment - let's see if it passes moderation
Expedite the future
If you want to let go of the past and usher in the future sooner, and so get the pain of transition over with in a short sharp shock, then abolish copyright. Otherwise you're just postponing the inevitable and causing grief to everyone who cannot resist their natural instinct to engage in cultural exchange, their natural liberty to share and build upon their own culture.
This isn't one of those "Because we aren't taxing something we're losing billions!" kind of arguments is it?
Govt: Because we're not taxing oxygen consumption, we're losing billions in lost tax revenue...
RIAA: Because we're not fully collecting the tax due on cultural exchange, we're losing billions in lost tax revenue...
There's a difference between revenue from productivity and revenue from taxation.
Tax is meant to be collected from the people in order to provide for the people. If it's not collected nothing is 'lost'. The people still have their money. If anything taxation loses revenue through administrative overheads.
However, a tax that ends up in private hands is simply theft from the people. Like the banking bailout.
Look around - whatever you eat, cheese that must not mold is now - they have invented something, I read the other day, well, that is no cheese. It is dead. The wonderful thing about a cheese is that it does mold. If you don't want to have it, don't eat cheese. No - but they give you cheese, the imitation of something alive, and of course it's completely dead. Kraft cheese, because it's - you know, "Kraft" means power, but I always think this (whole man) Kraft should be called weakness. This - this - "process cheese" as they call. The word "process" meaning the life has been chased out of the cheese.
From: 'Universal History - 1957' by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy (Born in Berlin 1888, emigrated from Germany to US in 1933,taught at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 1935-57).
How's that? A German speaking person, from birth, who even defines Kraft as power in the context of the cheese.
As I've said before, when you grok copyright you realise it's an alien parasite that's inserted itself into the core of the free market and now represents the greatest impediment to mankind's cultural progress.
The only cure is to take off and nuke it from orbit.
There will be intermediary agents to help artists discover and reach audiences and fans, just as there will be to help the latter discover and commission artists.
However, if 'label' is defined as an intermediary that commissions an artist to record their talent in order to make billions of copies (with a label affixed) of it to sell at monopoly inflated prices then, no, the role of that intermediary has ended.
Re: Re: Another confusion of copyright with progress
What makes you think the progress clause has anything to do with the subsequent plagiarism and enactment by Congress in 1790 of Queen Anne's statute of 1709?
The clause is about securing the individual's natural exclusive right to their intellectual work, not about the grant of any monopoly.
People who believe copyright is Constitutional are misguided - by a publishing industry extremely interested in people remaining so misguided.
To transfer the stated purpose of the progress clause to the purpose of copyright transforms it into a pretext, just as much as Queen Anne's intent to encourage learning was a pretext (to enrich a consequently beholden and obedient Stationers' Guild).
If publishing corporations' lawyers keep on stating that the purpose of copyright is to progress science and the useful arts, they engender the inference in the populace that copyright is the 'exclusive right' mentioned in the Constitution. This is further compounded when the same lawyers refer to copyright as "a legally granted right to exclude others from making copies" and contract it to "exclusive right" for short.
The solution to copyright is its abolition. Being a derogation of individual liberty it should have been abolished along with slavery.
Re: Re: Another confusion of copyright with progress
Was it unethical to sing someone else's song before copyright was granted? (US 1790)
Bear in mind that copyright is not a right, but a privilege - the grant of a reproduction monopoly for the benefit of the press. The right to copy is annulled in the majority (from their liberty) in order to reserve it to the few (holder & assigns).
One cannot compromise one's argument to help sway detractors, just as one cannot temper an argument that the Earth orbits the Sun to avoid offending the church.
On the post: Court Tells Mall That It Cannot Ban Customers From Talking To Strangers
What's troubling?
Just because you've permitted people on your premises that doesn't mean they become your puppets or playthings. You can eject them, but that doesn't mean you can do what you like to them if they remain, e.g. gag them, punish them if they sing, get them to stand on one leg, etc.
Privacy is the natural right to exclude others, not to have power over them as if property.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Even so, a driving license restores the liberty someone would have (had the state not suspended it) to drive a vehicle on certain land (public highways).
A (copyright) license is not a privilege, it restores liberty suspended (by copyright).
A license is not an agreement - others do not need to agree to have their liberty restored by the party privileged by copyright.
If you don't hold copyright over an intellectual work there is nothing about it you have to license. So, no, a copyright license is not independent of copyright.
On the post: BitTorrent Begins Directly Promoting Content Creators Willing To Embrace New Forms Of Distribution
Re: Re: Re: Re: Helps legitimise both
However, I find I have an uphill struggle trying to persuade anyone that an artist's fans will pay them even a penny. People are so easily confused between copies being free and performance & recordings not being free. So it's easier to keep the equations like this:
BEFORE:
1,000 fans buy copies for $10,000.
99,000 punters buy copies for $990,000.
Label keeps 99%=$990,000 (wages, costs, overheads, profit, etc.).
Artist gets $10,000.
AFTER:
1,000 fans pay commission of $10,000.
Billions of punters get free copies (copyleft).
Label is disintermediated.
Artist gets $10,000.
Remove the crap (copyright, monopoly protected prices, greedy publisher, highly inefficient service) and you're left with a far simpler exchange: the artist's intellectual work for their fans' commission.
Art for money, money for art.
On the post: BitTorrent Begins Directly Promoting Content Creators Willing To Embrace New Forms Of Distribution
Re: Re: Helps legitimise both
Who else is going to pay the artist except those that have always paid them? Their fans.
If you remove 100% of the costs of distribution, you should expect to remove the 99% fee traditionally claimed by the publisher. Now the keen fans pay 1%. The artist gets paid the same. The now disintermediated and redundant publisher ends up with nothing. That's why it's the publisher (copyright business model) who's doomed, not the artist nor the audience.
On the post: BitTorrent Begins Directly Promoting Content Creators Willing To Embrace New Forms Of Distribution
Helps legitimise both
The only thing that's still waiting to be fully developed is technology for the exchange in the other direction: sharing the artist's commission among the fans gladly wanting to incentivise their work.
On the post: U2 Manager Blames 'Free' And Anonymous Internet Bloggers For Industry Troubles
I posted this comment - let's see if it passes moderation
If you want to let go of the past and usher in the future sooner, and so get the pain of transition over with in a short sharp shock, then abolish copyright. Otherwise you're just postponing the inevitable and causing grief to everyone who cannot resist their natural instinct to engage in cultural exchange, their natural liberty to share and build upon their own culture.
On the post: Is Free Parking Costing Us Billions?
Re: Re: Not taxing = costing?
Sometimes one is so busy riding a particular hobby horse, there's little time to get off and walk a few miles in other shoes.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Weak argument _ Thanks RD, you are a nice 'something'...
Licenses are nothing to do with contract law.
A license may be provided in an exchange (per contract), but that doesn't mean the license is itself a contract.
On the post: Comically Absurd IP
Re:
On the post: Is Free Parking Costing Us Billions?
Not taxing = costing?
Govt: Because we're not taxing oxygen consumption, we're losing billions in lost tax revenue...
RIAA: Because we're not fully collecting the tax due on cultural exchange, we're losing billions in lost tax revenue...
There's a difference between revenue from productivity and revenue from taxation.
Tax is meant to be collected from the people in order to provide for the people. If it's not collected nothing is 'lost'. The people still have their money. If anything taxation loses revenue through administrative overheads.
However, a tax that ends up in private hands is simply theft from the people. Like the banking bailout.
On the post: Comically Absurd IP
This only works for Nina Paley
On the post: Once More (With Feeling): There's Still A Role For Record Labels... But It's Changing
Re:
How's that? A German speaking person, from birth, who even defines Kraft as power in the context of the cheese.
On the post: The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
Abolish Copyright
The only cure is to take off and nuke it from orbit.
Abolish copyright.
(The same applies to patent).
On the post: Once More (With Feeling): There's Still A Role For Record Labels... But It's Changing
Re: POWER and KRAFT DINNER
Also that 'fat' is the name of the substance in which the body stores its power reserves?
On the post: Once More (With Feeling): There's Still A Role For Record Labels... But It's Changing
Fault is in the term
However, if 'label' is defined as an intermediary that commissions an artist to record their talent in order to make billions of copies (with a label affixed) of it to sell at monopoly inflated prices then, no, the role of that intermediary has ended.
The market for copies has ended.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
It's only the granted monopolies that are unnatural.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Re: Another confusion of copyright with progress
The clause is about securing the individual's natural exclusive right to their intellectual work, not about the grant of any monopoly.
People who believe copyright is Constitutional are misguided - by a publishing industry extremely interested in people remaining so misguided.
To transfer the stated purpose of the progress clause to the purpose of copyright transforms it into a pretext, just as much as Queen Anne's intent to encourage learning was a pretext (to enrich a consequently beholden and obedient Stationers' Guild).
If publishing corporations' lawyers keep on stating that the purpose of copyright is to progress science and the useful arts, they engender the inference in the populace that copyright is the 'exclusive right' mentioned in the Constitution. This is further compounded when the same lawyers refer to copyright as "a legally granted right to exclude others from making copies" and contract it to "exclusive right" for short.
The solution to copyright is its abolition. Being a derogation of individual liberty it should have been abolished along with slavery.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Re: Another confusion of copyright with progress
Bear in mind that copyright is not a right, but a privilege - the grant of a reproduction monopoly for the benefit of the press. The right to copy is annulled in the majority (from their liberty) in order to reserve it to the few (holder & assigns).
One cannot compromise one's argument to help sway detractors, just as one cannot temper an argument that the Earth orbits the Sun to avoid offending the church.
On the post: The Cycle Of Copyright: Originally A Tool For Censorship, Attempted As A Tool For Incentives... Back To A Tool For Censorship
Re: Old article
Have you read it?
Next >>