----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Stodolenak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [313] Re: IP issues [LONG]
> It is natural for a government to turn to collective responsibility > for enforcing a law that many citizens do not believe in obeying. > The more digital technology helps citizens share information, the > more the government will need draconian methods to enforce copyright > against ordinary citizens. > > When the United States Constitution was drafted, the idea that > authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed -- and > rejected. Instead, the founders of our country adopted a different > idea of copyright, one which places the public first. Copyright in > the United States is supposed to exist for the sake of users; > benefits for publishers and even for authors are not given for the > sake of those parties, but only as an inducement to change their > behavior. As the Supreme Court said in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: > "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in > conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits > derived by the public from the labors of authors." So what are the general benefits to the public of copying? It sounds to me that the benefit of copying is the unimpeded sharing of information. Conceptually, this is a great idea. In practice I don't think this leaves us any way to support an artistic community. As I read this through to its logical conclusion, it seems to me that you are endorsing the eventual elimination of all standard means of distribution and artist compensation: a) all music would be available online, and unlimited piracy is an inevitable consequence if we endorse music sharing communities. b) final scratch and its children will completely destroy most of the once-unique appeal of vinyl. That's the argument I see you making, correct me if I'm wrong. I can see that free music for everyone would seem to be in the public good. But where does this leave an artist? Unless there is state funding, artists would not receive any compensation for their work because the public interest in copying is paramount. In the unlikely event the U.S. government endorses such a socialistic ideology, how do we foster new art? Will there also be a complimentary increase in state funding for artistic projects? I think this is extremely unlikely. It sounds like you're advocating socialistic high-ground without providing for an infrastructure to support the world of artists. At this point, can artists only expect to make a living by performing? Or do they all need to find a day job? If established artists are less able to focus on their creations full time, does this proposal really act in the public good? If there is state-funded support for artists, we open a huge can of worms about what artists will receive that funding. I think the public interests dictating the allocation of that funding would not work in favor of underground musicians. <SNIP> > Ever since the constitutional decision was made, publishers have > tried to reverse it by misinforming the public. They do this by > repeating arguments which presuppose that copyright is a natural > right of authors (not mentioning that authors almost always cede it > to publishers). > If we turn to these > arguments too much and too often, the danger is that we may allow > the publishers to replace the Constitution uncontested. <SNIP> > Resisting the pressure for additional power for publishers depends > on widespread awareness that the listening and viewing are > paramount; that copyright exists for users and not vice versa. If > the public is unwilling to accept certain copyright powers, that is > ipso facto justification for not offering them. Only by reminding > the public and the legislature of the purpose of copyright and the > opportunity for the open flow of information can we ensure that the > public prevails. So this is an issue of private vs. public rights and determing what if any value an original work has relative to a replica. With new technology, the original and the replica are virtually indistinguishable. So how does the "right to copy" find it's place within our current legal framework - or are you suggesting this will spur a socialistic revolution in the U.S.? I think you make some great arguments - I'd love to join in the socialistic revolution if it had any chance of success. Unfortunately, it doesn't. This is not what the public wants at large - and I don't see how we can advocate one public v. private rights policy so strongly in favor of the public without complimentary changes in the rest of our laws, which have no chance of taking hold. Your post exposes one of our primary social flaws. American capitalism and the U.S. constitution are essentially incompatible. The rights ensured attempt to mediate socialistic and capitalistic ideals - but the founders all envisioned a capitalistic society in which slavery was a given. Capitalism presupposes an underprivileged or enslaved class to ensure innordinate wealth for a small minority. I despise this, but I don't think Napster is the battle over which that war will be won or lost. If we advocate these ideals now, on this ground, I think it would harm the artistic community, and by extension the public. Tristan ---------- http://ampcast.com/phonopsia <- My music http://phonopsia.tripod.com <- Mixes, pics, thought, travelogue & info [EMAIL PROTECTED] <- email <FrogboyMCI> <- AOL Instant Messenger _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
