Quoting David Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
How about actually addressing the issues, and dealing with the
questions raised by the radical reform of copyright, rather than
idiotic abolitionist positions
As something of a fan of the Libre Commons licenses I don't understand what is
wrong with the consciousness raising content of 14+14. We shouldn't take a
managerialistic view of either the problem or the public.
that are not substantiated by careful consideration of the pros and
cons - afterall SOMEHOW the artists and musicians *will* need to be
compensated else why would they accept change.
I'm more concerned with being able to sing in the shower (see Australia's
current proposed copyright law) than Cliff Richard getting another
pension (see
the interview in which SirCliff admits he ignored his financial
advisor's advice
to get one in the 1950s). Which isn't to say I haven't worked on how to
"compensate" artists and musicians for their suffering and do not continue to
do so.
Creative Commons's fixation on showing how they can make you a
multimillionaire
like winning Pop Idol doesn't is harmful not only to freedom but to people's
ability to -er- make money. Trying to reproduce the imaginary benefits of
supply-side culture at the real expense of free culture and people making a
living is not a mistake I wish to emulate.
See William Fisher's book, Promises to Keep, for an excellent
attempt to make a cogent case for copyright reform.
Do I *have* to read Fisher's book? I really wasn't impressed by
Lessig's riff on
it. If I want to be spied on online and have my use of music monitored and
restricted in the name of monetisation I'll just start lobbying for DRM. I'm
currently looking warily at Benkler, which seems to be a Web 2.0 remix of Maus
without the anthropology. It's been years since I've wished there was a
Cliff's
Notes for something. ;-)
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
