[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dmca-discuss
Subject:    Re: [DMCA_Discuss] COMDEX speech
From:       Anatoly Volynets <anatoly () total-knowledge ! com>
Date:       2002-11-23 2:40:44
[Download RAW message or body]

On 20 Nov 2002, Scott A Crosby wrote:

> >From slashdot:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/19/technology/comdex_chernin/index.htm
>
> ''Media to tech: Stop stealing!  News Corp.'s COO says media and tech
> companies must cooperate to stop digital theft of content.''
>
>
> My response is:
>
>   Why do we listen to these cultural squatters, who sit on our culture
>   and claim they have a right to take it?
>
>   Who listens to these speculators, who hoard cultural creations
>   hoping that someday they might win it big?
>
>   Who pays attention to these meglomaniacs, who try to perpetually
>   hold our heritage hostage and control every use and access.
>
>   Who set up the modern intellectual feudalism, where you have kings,
>   dukes, and other nobility fighting over fiefdom of our intellectual
>   and cultural landscape. Nobility who rape the peasants who are
>   subject to their idiosyncratic and meglomaniac wills
>
>   Who are these people who claim that every work that is not created
>   by them is a 'shallow reinterpretation' that should be burned, yet
>   the nobility's creations are invariably unique and special.
>
>   If they shall call me a thief, pirate, and shoplifter.. Well, what
>   shall these men and women be called?
>
>
> Yeah, I'm preaching to the choir, but on the other hand, if they want
> to use invective language, why shan't we come up with our own?
>
> Its easier to say that we're academics trying to protect ourselves
> from cultural squatters, artistics speculators, and intellectual
> feudalism than it is to say that we're academics trying to protect
> thieves and pirates from the long arm of the law.
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________

As far as I can judge a lot of people do listen to IP enraged
holders. Regretfully, many of those listeners are artists,
journalists, writers, etc.

The base for that is generally accepted myth that
copyrights/patents provide two things: progress of science and
useful arts and financial incentives for creators. Neither of
two is true.

Yes, big holders have done their best to make public
(unfortunately, including many creators) to forget completely
that books, paintings, music belong to culture and are of the
different nature than real properties are. All relations within
culture are in actual opposition to those in realm of private
properties.

If you take someone's real thing without owner's permission it's
theft. If you copy a book for any reason, then you do, what is
generally supposed to be done: a writing is a way to communicate
people, is a creation of new ways to express problems and
feelings, is an expression of entire creator's soul. "You paint,
because you cannot not to. You paint or you die. That is you are
the painter" (Diego Riviera). I am not sure the quote is exact,
but its spirit is.

Usually, when it comes to the art and art only people do
understand what it is, but when it comes to business based on
culture all kinds of twisting occur. I think it is right
to stand by both feet on cultural ground, when it comes to
culture. And if we do so, in some respect there is nothing to
talk about: copyright is totally ill concept.

So I believe, all relations within culture must be returned on
cultural ground and be regulated according cultural natural law,
which is, generally, ultimate freedom of communication.

Art does not belong neither to properties, nor to private
parties, thus cannot be bought out. So if someone buys out a
work of art, this is a theft or something even worse, like
slavery is.

I do believe, that without copyright there is no reason to be
concerned about publishing business: they will always find a
way.

I share with others concerns about creator's compensation (which
is actually not addressed by copyright) and am sure that all
relations within culture if being set according to the culture
natural law, will make these compensation concerns to disappear.

Specifically, let's imagine that law provide the following:

1. A publication must always be attributed to its individual
author or authors. This right is unalienable.

2. Any entity, which pays an author for a work may be attributed
as a sponsor of the work. Work for hire does not entitle an
employer for attribution as an owner or anything else, but
sponsor of the particular work of particular author. An
authorship of any work done for hire must be publicly disclosed.

3. Any relations between an author and a sponsor to be regulated
on case by case basis and may be written into a contract, but
never may include any transferable and/or exclusive rights.

4. Any creative work once published becomes common good and may
be used by any entity for any purpose thereafter.

This set of rules will bring a burst for creation and
dissemination of creative works, put an author in the center of
all relations in the field, get him exposure and money.

Anatoly
http://www.total-knowledge.com

_______________________________________________


------------------------
http://www.anti-dmca.org
------------------------

DMCA_Discuss mailing list
DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org
http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]