..on Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 03:13:35PM +0200, adam hyde wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 14:54 +0200, Julian Oliver wrote:
>
> > It depends how you look at it. All a copyright license covers are the terms
> > of
> > copying and downstream distribution. If a license says "you're allowed to
> > relicense, copy and claim full authorship for my work" it's still a license,
> > just a very open and rather pointless one. Without copyright (as
> > 'naturalised'
> > from authorship by the Berne convention or otherwise) there would certainly
> > be
> > very little cultural production: we wouldn't have a history of art as made
> > by
> > artists, as work would be re-attributed at whim. Citation would be extremely
> > difficult - thus the derivative work - and so it follows that concepts as
> > posited by people, as objects of thought, would lose their vernacular,
> > critical
> > and cultural power.
>
> im not sure i agree...Berne was sometime in the late 1900s...
The Berne convention was established in 1886. Alot happened before then of
course. In Europe authors rights were handballed between the church and the
state, without the separation of which there wouldn't be a concept like
copyright at all.
All 'Copyright' does is affirm that the creator of a work has the right to
decide how that work can be distributed and used by others. The form that
decision takes, the License part, is another thing entirely.
> do u think
> we had no history of art or cultural production before then? we seem to
> have quite a rich knowledge of artists pre 1900s. If you take copyright
> back further to british law we are talking sometime around 1660 - I
> think we have maintained a lot of the vernacular, critical and cultural
> power of the Renaissance (which more or less ended before copyright was
> a legal notion), for example...
For sure, copyright very much existed before the 1880s. However, international
protection of authors rights was affirmed and given legal protection in the
1880s.
"The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of copyrights
among
sovereign nations, rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne
Convention,
copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared,
as they
are automatically in force at creation. In these countries, there is no
requirement for an author to "register" or "apply for" a copyright, or
to mark
his or her works with a copyright symbol or other legend. As soon as a
work is
"fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its
author is
automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any
derivative
works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until
the
copyright expires."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
>
> so i really dont think this marriage of copyright to attribution or
> cultural development holds. In fact, I would say that copyright has
> killed attribution in many ways as copyright attributes credit to the
> people that pay for the work. Who holds the copyright for Walt Disney
> films? Certainly not the creators, but the Disney Corporation...
I think you're mixing the license with the concept here. Copyright licenses,
like people, come in many shapes, sizes and dispositions. There are pro-culture
copyright licenses, like that Lawrence Lessig and Richard Stallman have created,
and then others, like those that give the RIAA federal rights to carry
submachineguns and fly black helicopters.
> As far as i see it, its hard to say copyright is pro-culture. You can
> say culture hasn't completely died under copyright. I would agree with
> this. But it hasn't helped.
Copyright is just a concept, and there's nothing wrong with the concept in
itself IMHO..
Cheers,
Julian
>
> >
> > Copyright can be pro-culture - it's just that /most/ copyright is broken,
> > perverted by the 'free' market - exploited to the contrary.
> >
> > > However, regardless of my beliefs, the position of saying copyright is
> > > broken is more provocative and might encourage more people to think
> > > about it than taking a position on the wording of legislation.
> >
> > It may do that, yep, as long as people are educated as to the options
> > otherwise.
> > As it stands I come across a lot of people that claim there is only
> > Copyright
> > (aka RIAA style) and Public Domain, which reflects a gross lack of
> > education on
> > the topic..
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 11:28 +0200, Julian Oliver wrote:
> > > > ..on Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:44:23PM +0200, adam hyde wrote:
> > > > > hey
> > > > >
> > > > > on the copyright issue ...
> > > > >
> > > > > i think it would be a good opportunity to provoke people to think
> > > > > about
> > > > > copyright - to release a statement way outside of the arguments of
> > > > > this
> > > > > debate, and go for the throat. in my mind that is a statement
> > > > > outlining
> > > > > that we think the current debate is ridiculous because copyright is
> > > > > broken and useless.
> > > > >
> > > > > so, perhaps the position to take, and one that might provoke people to
> > > > > think and might also catch some news-space, is to tell people that we
> > > > > dont want copyright at all...
> > > >
> > > > Hrmm.. as you (very) well know there is nothing wrong with copyright in
> > > > itself,
> > > > in fact copyright can't be avoided. Since the 1886 Berne convention
> > > > it's been a
> > > > naturally assigned right at the point of creating something: you can't
> > > > not-have-made something you've already made. It's the terms of which
> > > > that are
> > > > later defined and it's here that problems propogate..
> > > >
> > > > There are socially destructive forms of copyright and socially creative
> > > > forms of
> > > > copyright. The GPL is very much a copyright license as are all the
> > > > creative
> > > > commons licenses (as you know), both of which were created to be
> > > > productive at
> > > > the user level.
> > > >
> > > > The difference between socially destructive copyright (no right to
> > > > remix / no
> > > > right to learn from / what you buy is not yours to share) and socially
> > > > productive/creative copyright (right to remix, modify, distribute)
> > > > needs to be
> > > > emphasised.
> > > >
> > > > To these ends I think one of the terms that really needs to be squashed
> > > > is
> > > > 'CopyLeft'; it implies that Creative Commons and the GPL are somehow
> > > > 'anti-copyright' which is far from the case. This confuses people
> > > > greatly and
> > > > only serves to undermine any real education on positive, albeit
> > > > reformist,
> > > > directions in policy that benefit the public in general.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 14:46 +1200, Douglas Bagnall wrote:
> > > > > > hello list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have probably heard of fuss over "section 92a", a proposed
> > > > > > amendment
> > > > > > to copyright law that would allow for your internet connection to
> > > > > > be cut
> > > > > > when someone says you are using it piratically. It got passed as
> > > > > > law,
> > > > > > put on hold, thrown out, and is now perhaps fighting its way back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Throughout all of this ADA has had no position. It seems to me
> > > > > > that we
> > > > > > share considerable membership (that's you list subscribers) with the
> > > > > > Creative Freedom Foundation who led the battle against section 92
> > > > > > -- but
> > > > > > we probably also share members with APRA and SPADA who supported the
> > > > > > proposal. So if we do take a position, it is not immediately clear
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > it should be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The CFF and its opponents are being terribly pragmatic and tactical
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > what they call for. They are fighting over what the actual law will
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > like, letter by letter. Personally I'm in favour of a far more
> > > > > > anarchic
> > > > > > situation than anything the CFF dares advocate. I understand their
> > > > > > reasons, of course, but it makes me wonder: if ADA expresses an
> > > > > > official
> > > > > > opinion, should it be unashamedly fringe? Should put out press
> > > > > > releases
> > > > > > like they did manifestos 100 years ago?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Probably nothing will come of this. I'm just curious as to whether
> > > > > > ADA
> > > > > > members want their trust to be making statements on stuff like
> > > > > > this, and
> > > > > > if so, what they want said.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Douglas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Ada_list mailing list
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
> > > > > --
> > > > > Adam Hyde
> > > > > Founder FLOSS Manuals
> > > > > German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
> > > > > Email : [email protected]
> > > > > irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals
> > > > >
> > > > > "Free manuals for free software"
> > > > > http://www.flossmanuals.net/about
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Ada_list mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Adam Hyde
> > > Founder FLOSS Manuals
> > > German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
> > > Email : [email protected]
> > > irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals
> > >
> > > "Free manuals for free software"
> > > http://www.flossmanuals.net/about
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ada_list mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
> >
> --
> Adam Hyde
> Founder FLOSS Manuals
> German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
> Email : [email protected]
> irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals
>
> "Free manuals for free software"
> http://www.flossmanuals.net/about
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ada_list mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
--
Julian Oliver
home: New Zealand
based: Madrid, Spain
currently: Madrid, Spain
about: http://julianoliver.com
_______________________________________________
Ada_list mailing list
[email protected]
http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
