Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Here's Lessig's response to the ASCAP smear campaign: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/ascaps-attack-on-creative_b_641965.html Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
As Andrew pointed out, this discussion has spiraled entirely outside the scope of this list. Discussions on the effects of copyright law with regard to Wikimedia and its projects are welcome. General discussions on copyright law and piracy that have little to do with Wikimedia should be taken elsewhere. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 08:17, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote: As Andrew pointed out, this discussion has spiraled entirely outside the scope of this list. Discussions on the effects of copyright law with regard to Wikimedia and its projects are welcome. General discussions on copyright law and piracy that have little to do with Wikimedia should be taken elsewhere. Yes please! Guys! Self-restraint. Thanks, g ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Cary Bass wrote: On 06/30/2010 05:44 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I shouldn't use the work luck however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the Knock it off or else proposal. Ten years is an awfully short time[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_fame_of_Vincent_van_Gogh What good would even ten years have done for Van Gogh? Without a lot of promotion by Theo's wife, Vincent could very well have sunk into obscurity like so many artists habituating the streets of Montmartre. Vincent also had no children of his own. What needs to be revisited is the long term of copyright beyond a person's death. Who should really benefit at this point. I would support a use-it-or-lose-it after the initial ten year period. If the owner doesn't make a previously published work available to the public at a reasonable price he should lose the copyright. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Yann Forget wrote: Hello, 2010/7/2 wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk: wjhon...@aol.com wrote: If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much. They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style. The loss to the economy is staggering. Yet you'd do nothing, apply no sanctions, bitch about rights management, and let $billions each year be filtch from the creative industries. That 13 yo is as much a thief as the person that smashes the jewelers window and throws the contents into the street. Maybe we should have her MySpace and Facebook page branded with THIEF. Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. There is no loss, because most of the music which is freely downloaded would never be bought. These $billions never existed, and there will never exist. I even think that the opposite is sometime true. That by making a work freely available online, you create an incentive for buying it. Since the cost of the online publishing is marginal, there is an opportunity for profit. Online publishing is NOT the cost vector here. The actual material costs are negligible. If supermarkets can fly apples across the globe, sell them for pennies and still make a profit then transport and storage costs aren't an issue either. The cost are for paying the session musicians, the sound engineer, hire of the recording equipment, the mikes, amplifiers, all that sort of stuff. If you skimp on that your song sounds like shit. Then there is all the additional costs involved in getting it to market. That aside if I invest a bunch of money in some stocks that gives me a share in the profits of that companies I've invested in. No one says that in 10 years time my rights to a share in those profits are forfeit, and the rights devolved to some general class of whiners and moaners with an inflated sense of entitlement. You cannot blame others if you invest money in the wrong place. EH! There is protection for someone who invests in an oil rig their investment is protected for life and beyond, or until the well runs dry. But those that invest in creating something that advances science and the arts etc, those that are successful at it, those ones they get their investment taken away. Wow that's fair. The point is that the publishing industry _has_ to review its economic model with the new technical situation which is the Internet, and whether it publishes music, video or text. I have the impression that back in the C15 you'd have been there arguing Hey those peasants need to review their economic model of growing crops for market, now that there is this new technical situation which is the gun. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 7/2/2010 3:20:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: Nothing competes with free, why would you pay for an album when your mates just download it for nothing? Gee I don't know. Why are people still renting videos from Netflix when you can watch 500 free movies on YouTube? I think you're being specious. Why did you snip the context? Perhaps they haven't quite got the idea of BitTorrents, eDonkey or whatever. Perhaps they are slightly scared that they might get caught, perhaps they are fundamentally honest, perhaps they like to pretend they are Cosimo de' Medici dispensing their largess on the arts? Back in the late 80s a computer club I used to go to turned from a hackers showcase sort of place, to a pirate club. By the time I stopped going there there were 50 computers every month spending 2 hours copying games discs. I don't recall ever seeing an original disc. Someone somewhere must have bought one but it wasn't anyone at that particular club and those that I kept some form of contact with never paid for games. They don't pay for music or films either. Except as presents for xmas and birthdays cos it looks a bit cheap giving someone a DVD you've got off eMule. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much. They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style. The loss to the economy is staggering. Yet you'd do nothing, apply no sanctions, bitch about rights management, and let $billions each year be filtch from the creative industries. That 13 yo is as much a thief as the person that smashes the jewelers window and throws the contents into the street. Maybe we should have her MySpace and Facebook page branded with THIEF. And if after you keep attacking housewives and children, your image is horrible, well that's your tough luck as well. If people hate you because you're trying to protect a work on which you haven't *actually* made any income in thirty-five years that's your tough luck. I shouldn't use the work luck however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. What that someone who creates something that others want is to blame, because others have decided that they somehow have an entitlement to take? How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the Knock it off or else proposal. The bulk of the theft is contemporary works, not the works from 10 years ago, but the works that were created last week. That aside if I invest a bunch of money in some stocks that gives me a share in the profits of that companies I've invested in. No one says that in 10 years time my rights to a share in those profits are forfeit, and the rights devolved to some general class of whiners and moaners with an inflated sense of entitlement. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
This discussion is utterly and unsalvageably out of scope for this mailing list. If you wish to continue it, please do so on another forum, preferably one which does not result in the inundation of uninterested parties with your opinions on the enforcement of copyright law. On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much. They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style. The loss to the economy is staggering. Yet you'd do nothing, apply no sanctions, bitch about rights management, and let $billions each year be filtch from the creative industries. That 13 yo is as much a thief as the person that smashes the jewelers window and throws the contents into the street. Maybe we should have her MySpace and Facebook page branded with THIEF. And if after you keep attacking housewives and children, your image is horrible, well that's your tough luck as well. If people hate you because you're trying to protect a work on which you haven't *actually* made any income in thirty-five years that's your tough luck. I shouldn't use the work luck however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. What that someone who creates something that others want is to blame, because others have decided that they somehow have an entitlement to take? How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the Knock it off or else proposal. The bulk of the theft is contemporary works, not the works from 10 years ago, but the works that were created last week. That aside if I invest a bunch of money in some stocks that gives me a share in the profits of that companies I've invested in. No one says that in 10 years time my rights to a share in those profits are forfeit, and the rights devolved to some general class of whiners and moaners with an inflated sense of entitlement. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/30/2010 05:44 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I shouldn't use the work luck however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the Knock it off or else proposal. Ten years is an awfully short time[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_fame_of_Vincent_van_Gogh - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwtD/kACgkQyQg4JSymDYnXbgCgwX28KX4aB8Yi+AYJJyi3HPrc 1ioAoJo0cRQ6h28IaSGQ6Mx9u00QBRBj =gbcF -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/29/2010 11:21:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that you have to pay the fare, who would pay the fare upfront? Why not apply the same logic to all infractions. If you run a red light three times in your life, then you may not ever drive again. If you leave your underwear on the floor three times, then you cannot wear clothes. How exactly would you impose a you cannot use the internet restriction anyway? If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much. The seeders you mean the people who actually load the material to the net? If so, no one is stopping the copyright *owners* from filing lawsuits against Jane Doe. So exactly what damage are you trying to contain here? They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style. And if after you keep attacking housewives and children, your image is horrible, well that's your tough luck as well. If people hate you because you're trying to protect a work on which you haven't *actually* made any income in thirty-five years that's your tough luck. I shouldn't use the work luck however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the Knock it off or else proposal. Will Tough Love Johnson ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Andre Engels wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright on either text or melody. It *is* a violation, and that is a part of the problem. The bloody awful YouTube singer does, however, receive performance copyrights for what he does. Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local supermarket. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system. see this article on the work someone did to license some songs for a cover cd : http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_law.html For public performance of a song on youtube , it would fall under copyright: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html hope that helps : James Michael DuPont ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:34 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Andre Engels wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright on either text or melody. It *is* a violation, and that is a part of the problem. The bloody awful YouTube singer does, however, receive performance copyrights for what he does. Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local supermarket. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system. see this article on the work someone did to license some songs for a cover cd : http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_law.html Mechanical licenses don't cover video sync. Maybe if the video is really just someone singing, no choreography or anything, you could argue that point - I don't know. For public performance of a song on youtube , it would fall under copyright: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html Does distribution via YouTube qualify as a public performance, or is it copying/distribution? I assume the copyright holder would argue the latter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Ray Saintonge wrote: Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local supermarket. All of those are designed there is some creative input that goes into them. In some cases, given time, they have a decorative and nostalgic quality they makes them economically valuable. I don't see why someone should commercially exploit those fliers in some 20 years time. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system. In the past the corporations, those that owned the copyrights on the economically important works, registered and renewed the copyrights. What didn't get renewed or registered was the works of the those that weren't up with the legal system. Those works got expropriated, just ask the old blues guys who spent years trying to get what they were owed, and many of them never saw a penny. In theory at least, the laws were there primarily to protect the creators, not the publishers. Enforcement of copyright law should primarily be the responsibility of the owner of the right, not of the state except in the case of egregious and wilful violation where a higher burden of proof would also prevail. The other point is that damages should need to be proven with evidence, and should in no way depend on speculative analysis about what the public might want to see or hear. It serves no-one (except lawyers) when the costs of legal actions far exceed actual damages. There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that you have to pay the fare, who would pay the fare upfront? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
In a message dated 6/29/2010 11:21:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that you have to pay the fare, who would pay the fare upfront? Why not apply the same logic to all infractions. If you run a red light three times in your life, then you may not ever drive again. If you leave your underwear on the floor three times, then you cannot wear clothes. How exactly would you impose a you cannot use the internet restriction anyway? I don't see it as a very likely outcome. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Ray Saintonge wrote: Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local supermarket. All of those are designed there is some creative input that goes into them. In some cases, given time, they have a decorative and nostalgic quality they makes them economically valuable. I don't see why someone should commercially exploit those fliers in some 20 years time. What is your yardstick for determining what one of these will be worth in 20 years? Some old Ivory Soap ads are gems to read a century later, and some small obscure companies did produce some very clever ads. For many others, particularly ones targeting a local market, copyright and long lasting impact were the furthest thing from the minds of the creators; they were just looking to appeal to next week's grocery shoppers. While an easy argument can be made that the unsigned art was a work for hire, it doesn't help when the company was taken over by a big chain 10 years later, and the chain itself went bankrupt after another 5 years. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system. In the past the corporations, those that owned the copyrights on the economically important works, registered and renewed the copyrights. What didn't get renewed or registered was the works of the those that weren't up with the legal system. Those works got expropriated, just ask the old blues guys who spent years trying to get what they were owed, and many of them never saw a penny. That's not accurate. The concept behind renewals was that a creator who had received a raw deal when his work was first published could have a second chance. As a rule the publisher did not have the right to renew, and renewals by the publisher without a current authorization from the copyright owner are invalid. The creator could not give up his rights of renewal through the initial publishing contract. It would take a tremendous amount of work challenge a publisher's claim to a work, and deep pockets would have more to do with the outcome than any legal right. Deep pockets can leave an opponent broke long before the real issues go to a judge. A couple years ago there was a discussion about the famous 1950s picture of Einstein with his tongue sticking out. It's now owned by one of the big image merchants, who had in turn bought out another, who had in turn acquired it when Associated Press was defunct. My inclination would be to ask if the photographer was a freelancer, and, if so, did he renew his copyright? Does a copy of his contractual agreement with AP still exist? Is there a proper chain of ownership to the present day? These are extremely difficult questions to investigate, especially for someone whose motives are other than pecuniary. Much of the exploitation was done by those who now find their rights to the plunder challenged, not by individuals who chose to cover the blues number in a bar act. In theory at least, the laws were there primarily to protect the creators, not the publishers. Enforcement of copyright law should primarily be the responsibility of the owner of the right, not of the state except in the case of egregious and wilful violation where a higher burden of proof would also prevail. The other point is that damages should need to be proven with evidence, and should in no way depend on speculative analysis about what the public might want to see or hear. It serves no-one (except lawyers) when the costs of legal actions far exceed actual damages. There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that you have to pay the fare, who would pay the fare upfront? Deterrent works no better here than capital punishment as a deterrent to murder. Yes, there are bus-fare cheaters, but most people are happy to comply with an honour system. The bus companies provide a fare box where you can insert your fare, and information about the amount of the fare is easily available. When it comes to paying royalties in amounts that may be roughly equivalent to the bus fare there is nothing clear about it at all. When you approach copyright from an enforcement mindset instead of one based on fairness to creators you get different results. If a fine is levied for evading bus fares you know that the company providing the service is the one who benefits from the fine. When a recording companies demands and receives money for an alleged copyright violation how much of that is passed on to the artist? Ray Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Jeffrey Peters wrote: Dear David, I'm going to donate to their cause. Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You promote the taking of others who have not consented. To use this list to promote your own selfish desires bothers me. I would think it would only be right for you to lose access to this list for acting so inappropriately. Old bullshit never dies. I was just reading an article in a similar vein, The Ethics of Copyright by Grant Allen in the December 1880 issue of /Macmillan's Magazine/. It still hasn't grown any roses. . . which says something about its lack of fertility. By and large those who most loudly harangue about piracy fail to notice that interest here is seldom about reproducing the lyrics of current popular music, but about gathering the flotsam of intellectual efforts. The law of the sea clearly distinguishes between piracy and gathering flotsam. If the taking of music lyrics constitutes theft, no-one is more capable of maintaining that monopoly than the recording industry. It often seems too that the Law of Copyright comes into conflict with the Law of Supply and Demand. Your excellent articles about various significant poems of the English language may be excellent examples of original research that clearly deserves to be in Wikipedia, but demand is not solely derived from the excellence of an author's efforts. The patent office records are replete with records of ideas that easily passed the test of originality, but whose utility was abysmally laughable. Those inventors, like many authors, inflate the value of their own efforts well beyond the demand, and without regards to the effects of competition. The costs of producing physical copies of even the best articles of literary criticism far exceeds the price that the market will bear. The writer's efforts could be assembled in an anthology, but the the buyer needs to buy a packet of irrelevant material to have that one gem. If that one gem constitutes 5% of an anthology, no publisher is suggesting that I could have a copy of that article alone for 5% of the price. Novels may contain enough material to support separate marketing, but I would welcome a realistic analysis of the economics of a single sonnet. Ray On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. - d. They are effectively trying to fight contract law though which is unlikely to end will for them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:04:19PM +0100, David Gerard wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. I'd love to know what they're thinking. A quiet, noncommittal inquiry with some folks at ASCAP might be enlightening. No matter how they treat the request, it'd be good recon. And you never know, sometimes one can make a friend. :-) Who can we send? sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:04:19PM +0100, David Gerard wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. I'd love to know what they're thinking. A quiet, noncommittal inquiry with some folks at ASCAP might be enlightening. No matter how they treat the request, it'd be good recon. And you never know, sometimes one can make a friend. :-) Who can we send? sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l If this is a serious proposal to pursue, I can do that with a couple phone calls. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Jeffrey, I don't know if you're deliberately trolling, or just ignorant, but either way your behavior is unacceptable. I've placed you on moderation until further notice. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Jeffrey, I don't know if you're deliberately trolling, or just ignorant, but either way your behavior is unacceptable. I've placed you on moderation until further notice. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Jeff, I would like to think that you have a modicum of respect for me. Please re-read your posts, you are being a dick. I understand that other wikis are causing a bit of stress, but this is entirely inappropriate. I will buy you a beer and tell you this eye to eye. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Andre Engels wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself). We can only go with the information we have. And the information in this case was the actual letter. That letter _nowhere_ specifies what law they are fighting for or against. Instead, it says that they are fighting against groups that promote Copyleft in order to undermine our Copyright. When _I_ read that, I get the impression that they are fighting against copyleft. Clearly, others have understood the same thing. Apparently to you the combination of having that understanding and being in favor of copyleft is enough for you to attack people and flame them to death. I find that worrysome. What none of the internet service providers want is a strong enforcement of copyright applied to the activities of their users. These companies profit directly from the activities of their thieving users. Much of their user activity (80-90%) and the visits to the site, clusters around copyright material. Discourage the uploading of copyright material by a 3 strikes policy or direct legal action against file sharers, and a large part of their income disappears. When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copyleft material in the music world is, with the exception of promotional material, almost zero. When service providers start promoting free licenses to legislators they are doing so in order to undermine copyright within the online world. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Jeffrey Peters wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? To be fair Lessig was focusing on 30 seconds of distorted background music in a home movie (which was a fair-use), and the remixing of music and video to create some mashup which has in itself some creative input. Lessig is really only concerned with the later issues and has often stood out against the straight copy. In particular he declined to speak up for Tenenbaum. “P2P filesharing is wrong and kid’s shouldn’t do it,” http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/labels-cite-academics-emails-in.html The problem with the mashups is that there is no clear way to license the different parts, to do so would probably be prohibitively expensive for the masher upper, and in some cases licenses may well be refused. Legislators are currently feeling the weight of this themselves as their campaigns are using mashups and being hit by DMCA takedown notices and lawsuits by the copyright owners. McCain, DeVore ... The licensing issue is the thing that needs sorting. A balance has to be struck between the masher upper and the legitimate claims of the creators of the works. Some have suggested that the service provider should be paying a fee for the content hosted. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
In a message dated 6/26/2010 2:33:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing
so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copyleft material
in the music world is, with the exception of promotional material,
almost zero. When service providers start promoting free licenses to
legislators they are doing so in order to undermine copyright within the
online world.
{fact}
When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur
singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original videos
of that song/group. The amount of free content in music, in general is
rapidly approaching or perhaps past par with all professional music ever
created
to this day.
It's the proliferation of the ability for any person in the world to make a
spontaneous video that has now completely swamped all previous video
content.
When people start rapibly screaming that free licenses are just trying to
promote stealing, they just aren't getting it.
The *point* of free licensing is to promote sharing, which is mostly
personal content, regardless of what some music lobbying group is trying to
make-up.
Video sex chat rooms create more video every single day, than RCA ever
created in a week.
And that's going to accelerate. Same thing with music, same thing with
text. The amount of free is many times the amount of unfree.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/26/2010 2:33:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing
so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copyleft material
in the music world is, with the exception of promotional material,
almost zero. When service providers start promoting free licenses to
legislators they are doing so in order to undermine copyright within the
online world.
{fact}
When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur
singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original
videos
of that song/group. The amount of free content in music, in general is
rapidly approaching or perhaps past par with all professional music ever
created
to this day.
Its not the 100s of bad renditions that are attracting the views and it
isn't the bad renditions that people are visiting the site to listen
too. Pay the ones that created the viewable ones or those that you can
listen too.
Complaining about someone sitting in their bedroom badly strumming or
singing a song is where copyright enforcement goes too far.
It's the proliferation of the ability for any person in the world to make a
spontaneous video that has now completely swamped all previous video
content.
At best they put a slideshow of photos from flickr with a song from
their favourite pop artist. Normally they have a photo of the album
cover or publicity shot of the artist which shows for the duration of
the song.
When people start rapibly screaming that free licenses are just trying to
promote stealing, they just aren't getting it.
The *point* of free licensing is to promote sharing, which is mostly
personal content, regardless of what some music lobbying group is trying to
make-up.
It isn't the free that is getting the views. There may be a huge amount
of free material on youtube but its the 1% that happens to be under
copyright that is getting the views and drawing the advertising revenue.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original videos of that song/group. The amount of free content in music, in general is rapidly approaching or perhaps past par with all professional music ever created to this day. A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright on either text or melody. They probably won't be prosecuted over it, but legally they are violating copyright. Copyright laws were mostly created in a time when situations were different. There used to be a group of content creators, and a general public. Copyright was mostly a right from one content creator to another - you should not publish the book, song, whatever that I own the copyright on. The public at large did not have the means to publish, so copyright laws might as well not apply to them. What they could do was so inconsequential (write over a chapter of a book, sing a song in presence of their coworkers) that nobody minded exceptions being made for them. In the last few decades this changed. Automatic copying became cheaper and simpler with photocopiers, tape recorders, video recorders becoming mass products. Still, their impact was relatively minor. Although copyright industry saw these things as very problematic, they were mostly used to make single or few copies. Few people would make hundreds of copies of a single work to send them out. Fewer still did so for money. Many more people had the ability to become content publishers, but most of them did not use it. Then came the internet, enabling every single one of us to make our work available on an unprecedented scale. And with that the borderline between public and content publishers really came down. And with that, copyright became applied to situations totally different from the ones for which it was created. It used to be clear that if you put a poem in a book that sold in the shops, part of the proceedings should go to the poet. It used to be clear that nobody had anything to do with it if you put that same poem in your diary. But now, people are making their diaries (blogs) available for everyone, without getting any kind of compensation for the effort. Large amounts of non-professional, non-commercial publishing to potentially huge audiences is a situation that copyright laws did not foresee. Unfortunately, instead of realizing that the effect of copyright laws, intended to protect the rights of one commercial publisher against another are draconian when applied to such a different situation, where the average citizen is the one being affected, the main reaction seems to be to make the laws even stricter. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On 26 June 2010 11:53, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: The point of my post was, of course, that ASCAP are attempting to apply pressure to Congress to outlaw the licence most Wikimedia content is released under (by its creators). They want to stop the actual creators of content from releasing it under copyleft licences. I would hope you'd have something to say about that issue. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
David Gerard wrote: On 26 June 2010 11:53, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: The point of my post was, of course, that ASCAP are attempting to apply pressure to Congress to outlaw the licence most Wikimedia content is released under (by its creators). I don't suspect that is correct for one moment, and there is nothing to suggest such FUD in their letter. They are talking about THEIR copyright and that these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of *our* music. The music that is predominately listened to on the internet is not CC licensed you'll be hard pressed to find any CC licensed music that is in the top 40 of any chart or of any of the most popular downloads on a pirate site either. CC licensed music is not what is drawing eyeballs to youtube, and its not the background music that starts playing when you visit a MySpace page. Undoubtedly one can find plenty of startup groups distributing their music under a CC license and best of luck to them. But the majority of the music you hear isn't under a CC license, do CC licenses have any thing other than zero effect on the music market place? I suspect not. What CC licenses do in the music industry is give an excuse to justify downloading music from P2P networks. I recall Charles Nesson making just such a claim no more that a month a go Penalizing innocent infringers for downloading music blights creators of music who want to freely distribute their music. http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/peer-to-peer-defendant-seeks-supreme.html?showComment=1275013139245#c2634227307833538599 I doubt the local basement startup band actually needs to distribute 5MB songs over a p2p network. That the bandwidth used would hardly trouble their hosting site. Its such nonsense by Nesson and others at PK and the EFF that ASCAP want to counter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
David Gerard wrote: On 26 June 2010 17:33, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: I don't suspect that is correct for one moment, and there is nothing to suggest such FUD in their letter. They are talking about THEIR copyright and that these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of *our* music. No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? You're bending over backwards to miss the point here. I think you are letting your prejudices show. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:33 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: I doubt the local basement startup band actually needs to distribute 5MB songs over a p2p network. That the bandwidth used would hardly trouble their hosting site. Its such nonsense by Nesson and others at PK and the EFF that ASCAP want to counter. Nesson is a borderline drug-induced lunatic. He is also not affiliated with any of the organizations named in the ASCAP letter, as far as I know. Though the comment that you quoted isn't that outrageous. Penalizing ___innocent infringers___ for downloading music blights creators of music who want to freely distribute their music. (em mine). The concern isn't limited to P2P, it is also the risk of stigmatizing things which are available at no cost. It's a pretty real risk— outside of the world of zero marginal cost informational goods free is strong a sign of a hidden catch, so people tend to have the wrong intuitions. I've made a decent amount of money selling people my photographic and software works under licensing _more_ restrictive than the licenses they were already publicly available under simply because some manager was equating free with dangerous and paid with safe. This is a pretty uncontroversial argument. Slamming someone with a million dollar lawsuit for downloading something which they honestly and reasonably believed to be free would absolutely blight those who are willingly distributing their works at no cost. Now— the question of any of the actual existence of lawsuits against innocent infringers, is another matter entirely! But having to demonstrate that the infringement was something a reasonable person ought to have known about before prevailing these bits of million dollar litigation would probably not unduly burden artists enforcing their copyright. ... or at least thats a discussion worth having and isn't something which should be perceived as automatically dangerous to people who depend on strong copyright for their livelihood. On LWN I commented with a bit of criticism towards CC, PK, and the EFF because I don't think they've done enough to distance themselves from copyright abolitionist and crazy people like Nesson [http://lwn.net/Articles/393798/]. But it's a big step to go from saying that they could do more to distinguish their positions to saying that they are actually advocating these things. I don't think you can cite much in the way of evidence to support that position. On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? [snip] Yes. That isn't their official position, but their folks in the field take a position very much like that. You can't prove that you won't eventually play something by one of our artists, even by accident, so you _must_ pay up. I could bore you with my personal story of ASCAP extortion making my life unfun, but there are plenty of similar stories on the internet: http://blindman.15.forumer.com/a/ascap-closing-down-live-music-venues_post35872.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? If that artist is a bad amateur singer trying to sing some good song which is licensed by them, they're supposed to get a fee, aren't they? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: Online distribution doesn't favor having a lot of middle men, certainly not a lot of _profitable_ middlemen... I've yet to see much evidence of that. Online distribution seems to love middle men as much as any other distribution, and obviously _profitable_ middlemen are the ones providing the greatest benefit. (According to Wikipedia, iTunes accounts for 70% of worldwide online digital music sales. That said, online distribution seems to love *different* middle men. That perhaps is more the problem ASCAP is having. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: David Gerard wrote: No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when people distribute CC-licensed music too. Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. So why would you assume that they expect a fee when any music is distributed by an artist that isn't signed up to them? If that artist is a bad amateur singer trying to sing some good song which is licensed by them, they're supposed to get a fee, aren't they? Hmm, looking around, it seems that would be someone else (most commonly Harry Fox Agency, http://www.harryfox.com/public/MechanicalLicenseslic.jsp). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. - d. I can at least understand them having issue with EFF and the like but the article is right: going against Creative Commons is laughable. How DARE you decide to release your own content into the public sphere, how DARE YOU! /me sighs James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On 25 June 2010 23:15, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. I can at least understand them having issue with EFF and the like but the article is right: going against Creative Commons is laughable. How DARE you decide to release your own content into the public sphere, how DARE YOU! /me sighs Laughable it may be to us, but they're trying to gather actual lobbying dollars to block the use of such licences. I do think we need to say er, no nice and early. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. - d. They are effectively trying to fight contract law though which is unlikely to end will for them. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Dear David, I'm going to donate to their cause. Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You promote the taking of others who have not consented. To use this list to promote your own selfish desires bothers me. I would think it would only be right for you to lose access to this list for acting so inappropriately. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. - d. They are effectively trying to fight contract law though which is unlikely to end will for them. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you. Ryan Kaldari On 6/25/10 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote: Dear David, I'm going to donate to their cause. Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You promote the taking of others who have not consented. To use this list to promote your own selfish desires bothers me. I would think it would only be right for you to lose access to this list for acting so inappropriately. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you. It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you. It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Please stop with the aggressive threats against other users. It's a) not helpful, b) incredibly inappropriate, and c) not your decision anyway. -Dan On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you. It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Dear Dan, The Foundation-l is not for political advocacy. That is well known. It is disgusting that someone would attempt to use it for that end. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: Please stop with the aggressive threats against other users. It's a) not helpful, b) incredibly inappropriate, and c) not your decision anyway. -Dan On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote: David Gerard, This list is not for your political advocacy. Now, stop trolling. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact. Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you. It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Hi, Jeffery. You are obviously upset about this, and it's coming across strongly enough in your writing that it undermines the effectiveness of the point you are trying to make. I see it's pretty hot in DC today. Perhaps now would be a good time for a cold drink and a break? We'll all still be here tomorrow. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
James Alexander wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. - d. I can at least understand them having issue with EFF and the like but the article is right: going against Creative Commons is laughable. How DARE you decide to release your own content into the public sphere, how DARE YOU! /me sighs Creative Commons is actually a much bigger threat to their revenue stream than EFF is, which probably explains the animosity. ASCAP administers licenses for the music its members create, collects fees when it is performed, and distributes royalties to members accordingly. The fees also pay for the costs of administering the system. If the material is available through alternative licensing channels, it undermines the ability of ASCAP to make money off of it. It's the same reason that Getty Images won't allow photos they acquire through their Flickr deal to remain available under the site's Creative Commons license options. The letter looks like garden-variety political fundraising where the money will mostly go toward campaign contributions for select politicians (no doubt with an eye on particular congressional committees). I'm not sure it will be used to hire any actual lobbyists or mount a specific legislative campaign, although we should certainly keep an eye out for further developments in that regard. If that does materialize, I'd be happy to speak out on it in a personal capacity, whether or not the foundation is in a position to do so. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Dear Michael, I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set copyright multiple times. This is problematic because Wikipedia has a huge plagiarism and copyvio problem that is caused by the same people that would come under conflict above. This clearly would not affect those who freely license their own material, which is what Wikipedia and the WMF is about. I've donated thousands of hours and hundreds of megs of my own material and my own effort. I find it a slap in the face that you would then make such statements. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: James Alexander wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this. - d. I can at least understand them having issue with EFF and the like but the article is right: going against Creative Commons is laughable. How DARE you decide to release your own content into the public sphere, how DARE YOU! /me sighs Creative Commons is actually a much bigger threat to their revenue stream than EFF is, which probably explains the animosity. ASCAP administers licenses for the music its members create, collects fees when it is performed, and distributes royalties to members accordingly. The fees also pay for the costs of administering the system. If the material is available through alternative licensing channels, it undermines the ability of ASCAP to make money off of it. It's the same reason that Getty Images won't allow photos they acquire through their Flickr deal to remain available under the site's Creative Commons license options. The letter looks like garden-variety political fundraising where the money will mostly go toward campaign contributions for select politicians (no doubt with an eye on particular congressional committees). I'm not sure it will be used to hire any actual lobbyists or mount a specific legislative campaign, although we should certainly keep an eye out for further developments in that regard. If that does materialize, I'd be happy to speak out on it in a personal capacity, whether or not the foundation is in a position to do so. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
In a message dated 6/25/2010 3:55:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu writes: Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Why do I envision the Red Queen and the White Queen when I read that remark? David Gerard cut off your own head! Do it immediately! But on a lighter note. Whether or not the owner/author/creator/inventor of CC advocates piracy or doesn't, is not material at all to what the *contributors* to CC are actually doing. As far as music lyrics, since when can you actually buy the lyrics to any piece of music, anywhere, ever, at any time, whatsover? You BUY sheet music, or a song book, or a performance. I've never, in my entire life, seen lyrics for sale by themself. So please provide a place where they are. Otherwise you cannot protect the profit from something from which there is no profit and was never intended to be. Next caller! Will the slammer Johnson ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Dear WJhonson, Lyrics are sometimes included on disk jackets, album covers, etc. Just because something is not accessible does not mean people have the right to pirate them, reproduce them, etc. Instead, the rarity of a material would make it even more legitimate to enforce the copyright. The lyrics are copyrighted. And you can copyright something and intend not to sell or distribute it, and you have the right to keep others from profiting off of it. Otherwise, authors and artists would have no ability to protect unreleased material, which is insane. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:18 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/25/2010 3:55:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu writes: Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Why do I envision the Red Queen and the White Queen when I read that remark? David Gerard cut off your own head! Do it immediately! But on a lighter note. Whether or not the owner/author/creator/inventor of CC advocates piracy or doesn't, is not material at all to what the *contributors* to CC are actually doing. As far as music lyrics, since when can you actually buy the lyrics to any piece of music, anywhere, ever, at any time, whatsover? You BUY sheet music, or a song book, or a performance. I've never, in my entire life, seen lyrics for sale by themself. So please provide a place where they are. Otherwise you cannot protect the profit from something from which there is no profit and was never intended to be. Next caller! Will the slammer Johnson ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
I can think of an example where someone had to buy lyrics: When the creators of the Eyes on The Prize civil rights documentary wanted to republish their documentary on DVD so that a new generation of people could see how institutionalized racism was overcome through decades of bloody struggle, Warner Music demanded that they pay $10,000 for the right to use a clip of people singing Happy Birthday to Martin Luther King Jr on his birthday since Warner owned the lyrics to Happy Birthday. This delayed the republishing of the documentary for years. Fortunately, the Ford Foundation donated the money so that Warner Brothers could be properly paid and wouldn't have to resort to begging for change on the street corner. Ryan Kaldari On 6/25/10 4:18 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/25/2010 3:55:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu writes: Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? Why do I envision the Red Queen and the White Queen when I read that remark? David Gerard cut off your own head! Do it immediately! But on a lighter note. Whether or not the owner/author/creator/inventor of CC advocates piracy or doesn't, is not material at all to what the *contributors* to CC are actually doing. As far as music lyrics, since when can you actually buy the lyrics to any piece of music, anywhere, ever, at any time, whatsover? You BUY sheet music, or a song book, or a performance. I've never, in my entire life, seen lyrics for sale by themself. So please provide a place where they are. Otherwise you cannot protect the profit from something from which there is no profit and was never intended to be. Next caller! Will the slammer Johnson ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Dear Michael, I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set copyright multiple times. This is problematic because Wikipedia has a huge plagiarism and copyvio problem that is caused by the same people that would come under conflict above. This clearly would not affect those who freely license their own material, which is what Wikipedia and the WMF is about. I've donated thousands of hours and hundreds of megs of my own material and my own effort. I find it a slap in the face that you would then make such statements. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima I think that Michael was talking about speaking against them if they were targeting the CC license itself (he was responding to my comment about the CC licenses). Given that those are the licenses we use (and that a large pillar of our projects is having as much of our information available under licenses like it) it would make sense that we want to be aware of what was happening and make sure our reasoning was out there. I, like you, think the issue of the ISP rule is different. In many ways I actually support the 3 strikes rule .It isn't perfect in my mind but much better then the lawsuits which I think harmed the industry far more then it helped. I went to many court cases out of interest and while some were very interesting (there were a couple people that to be honest probably deserved to be sued) most were a mass of depression. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Dear James, If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only what wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law that was being passed that the backers of those were in opposition to (i.e. the anti-piracy law. As I pointed out in the WSJ article, was something Lawrence Lessig would be against as he wanted, if you read the very end, to end any enforcement of copyright laws against P2P people, which happens to be blatant piracy). I am all for my chosing to release my content without any copyright restrictions. I am against forcing everyone to do the same, as there is a lot of content of my own that I do not release freely and I would not want to be released freely. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:34 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Dear Michael, I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set copyright multiple times. This is problematic because Wikipedia has a huge plagiarism and copyvio problem that is caused by the same people that would come under conflict above. This clearly would not affect those who freely license their own material, which is what Wikipedia and the WMF is about. I've donated thousands of hours and hundreds of megs of my own material and my own effort. I find it a slap in the face that you would then make such statements. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima I think that Michael was talking about speaking against them if they were targeting the CC license itself (he was responding to my comment about the CC licenses). Given that those are the licenses we use (and that a large pillar of our projects is having as much of our information available under licenses like it) it would make sense that we want to be aware of what was happening and make sure our reasoning was out there. I, like you, think the issue of the ISP rule is different. In many ways I actually support the 3 strikes rule .It isn't perfect in my mind but much better then the lawsuits which I think harmed the industry far more then it helped. I went to many court cases out of interest and while some were very interesting (there were a couple people that to be honest probably deserved to be sued) most were a mass of depression. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Jeffrey, You are aware that Wikimedia projects use creative commons licenses, right? You have noticed that Wikimedia projects delete content on-sight that is a copyright violation? You do know that creative commons is a project to promote the *legal* re-use of copyrighted material? As the article says: While lobby groups EFF and Public Knowledge advocate for liberal copyright laws, Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators. Given that the Wikimedia projects are smack-bang in the middle of the free-culture movement, don't you think that you might be barking up the wrong tree to suggest that David G is in any way out of place to be pointing this issue out to us on this list? On 25 June 2010 23:39, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Dear James, If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only what wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law that was being passed that the backers of those were in opposition to (i.e. the anti-piracy law. As I pointed out in the WSJ article, was something Lawrence Lessig would be against as he wanted, if you read the very end, to end any enforcement of copyright laws against P2P people, which happens to be blatant piracy). I am all for my chosing to release my content without any copyright restrictions. I am against forcing everyone to do the same, as there is a lot of content of my own that I do not release freely and I would not want to be released freely. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Jeffrey Peters wrote: Dear Michael, I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set copyright multiple times. Jeffrey, it seems the underlying article has confused you about the relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking. That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this tangent gave him an opportunity to link to his previous reporting. However, just because I would be willing to defend copyleft and support Creative Commons, it doesn't mean I have taken any position about a proposal, which is not yet law as far as I know, and apparently was not pushed in a strategic plan produced by an Obama administration executive, who is not an elected official and cannot legally accept contributions, but happened to produce this plan a day before the fundraising letter in question, which curiously does not say anything about what I have just mentioned except the first part involving copyleft and Creative Commons. I think the length of that sentence ought to illustrate just how tenuous the connection is. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Dear Liam Wyatt, Reread my previous emails. I have made it clear that the law that is being discussed and being promoted by the ASCAP is a law that would terminate the internet access of repeat piracy offenders. The only reason why CC et al are involved are through the political advocacy of their creators, most of who were proponents of the P2P piracy and other actions (as you can see from the WSJ article by the CC head). It has nothing to do with the actual CC licenses as only illegal reuses would be affected. And freeculture is not piracy, just like charity is not theft. Those like myself produce tons of free content that is intended to be free. We have the right not to be associated with law breakers and criminals who steal from those who do not wish their material to be free. Furthermore, since those like myself are academics in nature, we cannot have our material tainted by piracy and the rest, as it would undermine any credibility the material has. That is why Wikipedia et al takes a hardline stance against copyvios. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Jeffrey, You are aware that Wikimedia projects use creative commons licenses, right? You have noticed that Wikimedia projects delete content on-sight that is a copyright violation? You do know that creative commons is a project to promote the *legal* re-use of copyrighted material? As the article says: While lobby groups EFF and Public Knowledge advocate for liberal copyright laws, Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators. Given that the Wikimedia projects are smack-bang in the middle of the free-culture movement, don't you think that you might be barking up the wrong tree to suggest that David G is in any way out of place to be pointing this issue out to us on this list? On 25 June 2010 23:39, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Dear James, If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only what wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law that was being passed that the backers of those were in opposition to (i.e. the anti-piracy law. As I pointed out in the WSJ article, was something Lawrence Lessig would be against as he wanted, if you read the very end, to end any enforcement of copyright laws against P2P people, which happens to be blatant piracy). I am all for my chosing to release my content without any copyright restrictions. I am against forcing everyone to do the same, as there is a lot of content of my own that I do not release freely and I would not want to be released freely. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Dear Michael, Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself). Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: Jeffrey Peters wrote: Dear Michael, I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set copyright multiple times. Jeffrey, it seems the underlying article has confused you about the relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking. That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this tangent gave him an opportunity to link to his previous reporting. However, just because I would be willing to defend copyleft and support Creative Commons, it doesn't mean I have taken any position about a proposal, which is not yet law as far as I know, and apparently was not pushed in a strategic plan produced by an Obama administration executive, who is not an elected official and cannot legally accept contributions, but happened to produce this plan a day before the fundraising letter in question, which curiously does not say anything about what I have just mentioned except the first part involving copyleft and Creative Commons. I think the length of that sentence ought to illustrate just how tenuous the connection is. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself). We can only go with the information we have. And the information in this case was the actual letter. That letter _nowhere_ specifies what law they are fighting for or against. Instead, it says that they are fighting against groups that promote Copyleft in order to undermine our Copyright. When _I_ read that, I get the impression that they are fighting against copyleft. Clearly, others have understood the same thing. Apparently to you the combination of having that understanding and being in favor of copyleft is enough for you to attack people and flame them to death. I find that worrysome. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
Dear Andre, I think I have made it clear in my hundreds of megs worth of donations to material to WMF projects that I am in support of the actual licensing. I believe it is important to allow for people who wish to have their content be free to be free. But as I pointed out from the WSJ, the person behind CC is also behind much of the pro P2P movement that was, early on, illegitimate and piracy based. If you want to know my fair use credentials and my involvement, I was one of the people involved in the fringe of one of the most important internet fair use court cases of the modern era, but I was lucky enough to not have any of my reproductions of newspaper articles be chosen as part of the lawsuit, so I was able to get out of the mess that ensued. However, I had the ability to, when young, witness the battle of fair use between the various groups first hand. Being on the other side, as an academic and one who publishes, I see a clear need to be able to separate what is free (my hundreds of articles and such donated to WMF) to what is not (my person column, works, etc). I have also been a major advocate against those who plagiarize or blatantly steal material from others and post it on Wikipedia. I am a strong believer in producing content that is free, but not taking it and making it free. The means must be proper in order to prove that we are proper. There is a difference between copyleft and piracy, even though some of the founders of the copyleft movement (free material existed before them) are supportive of the piracy/anti-copyright movement. To protect the free licenses, it would be necessary for us to stamp out plagiarism and the rest. We are not Robin Hoods who seek to steal from the rich to give to the poor. We should be those who originate our own and serve our cause through our own sweat and blood. If someone wants to give up their effort for free, it should be through their own choice. The ASCAP is concerned about efforts within the copyleft community that is based in piracy and not legitimate copyleft originating materials. Those in the copyleft movement should also be concerned about piracy, as it undermines and destroys our cause. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself). We can only go with the information we have. And the information in this case was the actual letter. That letter _nowhere_ specifies what law they are fighting for or against. Instead, it says that they are fighting against groups that promote Copyleft in order to undermine our Copyright. When _I_ read that, I get the impression that they are fighting against copyleft. Clearly, others have understood the same thing. Apparently to you the combination of having that understanding and being in favor of copyleft is enough for you to attack people and flame them to death. I find that worrysome. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
In a message dated 6/25/2010 6:58:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu writes: If you want to know my fair use credentials and my involvement, I was one of the people involved in the fringe of one of the most important internet fair use court cases of the modern era, but I was lucky enough to not have any of my reproductions of newspaper articles be chosen as part of the lawsuit, so I was able to get out of the mess that ensued. However, I had the ability to, when young, witness the battle of fair use between the various groups first hand. --- Could you please provide the full citation? I would like to read about this case. Thanks Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: about the relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking. That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this tangent gave him an opportunity to link to his previous reporting. [snip] +100 The event David was writing about was that the ASCAP sent out this letter: (in two parts) http://twitpic.com/1zai6e http://twitpic.com/1zai66 There is no connection obvious there with any particular lawmaking. Nor am I otherwise aware of any of organizations in question explicitly lobbying for the abolition of copyright though they may have failed, at times, to denounce the claims by others that they were for such an abolition. What I've mostly seen is the advocacy that authors choose less restrictive licensing, opposition to policy which would reduce the current or future public domain, discouraging a legal policy which creates larger punishment for copyright infringement than other more social impacting crimes, and other such activity which should be generally beneficial or at worst neutral to the economic welfare of artists. It would seems that the ASCAP has conflated the aims of these organizations with those of movie pirates, arguably because doing so is in the ASCAP's interest as the bulk rights collecting societies are on the long end of a dying line of businesses and nothing short of an dramatic expansion of copyright powers is likely to keep them alive. Online distribution doesn't favor having a lot of middle men, certainly not a lot of _profitable_ middlemen... but this detail has little to do with the interests of _artists_ and music consumers that the ASCAP claims to be concerned with here, and certainly doesn't have much of anything to do with any existing law. On the general subject of business-protection-laws hiding as copyright-laws I would recommend listening to [[Eben Moglen]]'s commentary on the DMCA from a panel at the 2001 Future of Music policy summit at 15:15 in http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/eben.ogg he continued these views on the positions of the 'music industry' at 31:36, You are listening to a conversation among dead business about how, under certain imaginary conditions, if it only takes long enough for us to recognize that they are dead they might come back to life. If there were a transcript, I'd link to that instead. But there isn't, and Eben's points are really enjoyable, as usual. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
