Good questions. I'm thinking of a couple of things. Most think it fair that if you created it, you should make money from it. And most think it fair that if you couldn't find a way to make money off it and would never make a dime on it yourself, but if someone else has found a way and can make money from it, then they owe you some. And many think it fair that even if you aren't trying to make money from it, you still can't use it without permision.
I guess I'm thinking that intellectual rights seem to me to be about attribution: who gets credit for it. That is not the same as who gets to make money from it. In our culture, however, these things seem to be inextricably linked. I understand that they are related. I just wonder how we define "fair use" and why the "users" of these creations have no rights, only the creators? I'm also thinking about the "securing for limited time" part of the Constitution you quoted. What constitues "limited time" in modern culture? I don't think it right for people to steal from others. But I also don't think it right for people to be greedy or selfish, either. I'm thinking of things like generic vs. brand name drugs. It seems fair to me that there are time limits on how long one can own the rights to manufacturing a drug and charging a fortune for it. And I probably do tend to believe that one should not have to get permission for at least certain kinds of derivative works, though I will admit that I don't know enough about the kinds and categories of derivative works that exist to say which might be acceptable and which might not. What I love about the creations on Youtube is that so many of them are at least in part about the love of creating something and sharing it with others rather than about making money from it. I know that the creators on Youtube got to decide to do this. Just like Jonathan got to decide to share his work on his website (Go, Jonathan!). I guess I'm wondering: if we want the privelege of making our creations public, do we only have rights to our creations, or do we also have responsibilities? And does the public have any rights at any point once this creation has been made public? If not, why not? On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Dave Henn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hmmm. An interesting statement. If an author has exclusive rights to > his/her work, that precludes use of the work absent that author's > permission, except under certain circumstances (a la Fair Use > defense). If the author will only grant permission in exchange for > money, then the exclusive right to the work includes at least the > right to make money from the work. > > Are you saying that derivative works, which are subject to the rights > of the author of the original work, shouldn't need permission grants? > If an author will not grant permission for another to use his/her > work, it would seem that another would not have a right to make money > from it. > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Janice Carello > <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is a difference, though, between a creator's exclusive rights to > his > > or her creation and a creator's exclusive right to make money from his or > > her creation. > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Dave Henn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Lessig does make sense. I'm curious as to whether he created the title > >> that says "the law is strangling creativity" since that is extreme and > >> seems to go against some of the premises of his talk. As he says, it's > >> extremism that's the real problem, and the application of the law to > >> developing technologies without recognizing that some applications > >> don't make sense. The Creative Commons movement that he "didn't talk > >> about" is promising, to be sure. Just remember that the Founders > >> thought IP was important enough to put it in the Constitution, Article > >> I, Section 8: > >> "Section. 8. > >> > >> The Congress shall have Power ... > >> > >> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for > >> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their > >> respective Writings and Discoveries;" > >> <http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html> > >> > >> Yes, some aspects of the law have gone overboard. But we don't want to > >> destroy creators' rights to their creations. Balance and moderation. > >> Good things to seek in many venues. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Janice Carello < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Thanks, Craig. This is great. > >> > > >> > What Lessig says about youth thinking differently, about culture, > about > >> > creativity, and about criminalization resonates with me, particularly > in > >> > terms of teaching writing. I am going to share this link with my > >> > colleagues. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:27 AM, delancey <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I think Lessig's latest TED lecture is spot on: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html > >> >> > >> >> cd > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Janice > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Dave Henn > >> [email protected] > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Janice > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dave Henn > [email protected] > > > > -- Janice --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
