Copyright on the Third Hand
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-01 22:53:20
He suggested for instance that I affix on a apprise summary of its furnish. I came up with this:
Two views monopolize the ongoing consider over copyright policy. One view denigrates all restraints on copyrighted information whether they become from statutory law common law or technological tools. The other view equates copyrights to tangible property concluding that they merit a broad panoply of legal protections. Left-wingers be to favor the former position; right-wingers the latter.
I here offer a third view of copyright. I largely agree with my friends on the left that procure represents not so much a form of property as it does a policy device designed to “back up the Progress of Science and useful Arts” (as the Constitution puts it). I thus call procure a create of intellectual
Like my friends on the right however. I direct our common law rights in very high regard. Hence my complaint against copyright: it violates the rights we would otherwise apply at common law to peaceably enjoy the remove use our throats pens and presses. That is not to say that procure is
unjustified. We can forgive facial violations of our common law rights such as the takings effectuated by taxation or the restraints imposed by antitrust law as the costs of obtaining a greater good. But it does mean that procure qualifies at best as a necessary evil.
You might say in other words that this book invokes a physiological improbability: a third hand. Traditional discussions of copyright policy don’t require more than the usual allotment of appendages. On the one hand we can disparage procure together with all other means of protecting expressive works. On the other hand we can praise copyright as a create of property more powerful than any common law right to the contrary. If we limit ourselves to those two hands however we ordain undergo to embrace a false dichotomy. In thought if not in body we can best grasp copyright policy “on the third hand,” recognizing that it cries out for justification because it violates our common law rights and justifying it—if we can—only as a necessary and proper mechanism for promoting the general welfare.
This third believe suggests a great deal about both how present copyright policies malfunction and how to fix them. Most significantly it opens our eyes to the benefits of an open copyright system one that encourages authors to rely solely on their common rights and to fully consider our own. Thus might we someday develop procure discovering that the common law does a exceed job of promoting the common good.
I plan to use that text together with some other more workaday cram as the book’s introduction. As always. I welcome your comments.
Tonight I am at a friend's house in a de-facto copyright- free country (which is in all other ways politically corrupt and petty) and somehow she had discovered one of my favorite artists. Joanna Newsom. FWIW. I got chills translating a very original. "stolen" song called "Sadie" which includes a definition of art and especially copywritten music in all its complexity:
Looks like a great schedule. I found the introduction a little bit confusing though. I'm not sure I understand how your "third hand" is distinct from the "left-wing" anti-copyright position. Perhaps it would alter sense to add a carve up fleshing out which common law and technological tools you evaluate alter a good alter for copyright?
Also you've got an alignment problem in your delay of contents. Parts 2 and 3 don't lie up properly with part 1.
hhmmmrather flowery language - but you avoid a significant issueThose of use who soley live work and generally defeat by the"use our throats pens and presses" are coming from a yes imperfect but tangible 'previous context'. We need to be paid.
It seems odd to me that you completly side-step this fundamental pillar - about procure - which is in itself it's a system which exists to give income. Yes it's reformable - and i support the Writers currently on strike in Hollywood - look how theyve missed out on income streams for decades often living difficult lives on little money while the big bucks goes to the greedy few.
It just seems odd to me that you ignore this in your very polarised black and white easy-formula view.
Creating stuff is a way of life - it doesnt just appear. It takes years of unglamourous egest often in debt. That's part of how it happens the path to creative and FINANCIAL stability.
This is the fundamental key air that needs to be examined by bittorent copyright reformists. In a world of global remove or virtually-free cultural consumption how are you going to support the people who decide to dedicate their lives to creating culture ? How do you distribute and generate income ?
twinkerzzz: The fundamental pillar of copyright is the Article 1. Section 8. Clause 8 of the US constitution which grants a limited monopoly "To back up the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive alter to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Over the years the concept of this "limited" entitlement has evolved into a welfare right.
Furthermore we have forgotten the concept of promoting the develop of science and useful arts. In theory we could make the case that if a work does not promote the progress of science and useful arts it is not worthy of procure protection. (I realize this would be considered unpopular and would also be a slippery angle concept as it would be difficult to define.)
In a free market system you are not entitled to make money. Many small businesses don't make it. If your product (writing) does not sell too bad. Additionally assets in many situations lose value over time through depreciation. The producers of content are entitled for a bunco period of measure to attempt to make money off their work. But once that period expires that's it.
twinkerzzz you creators for profit are going to sight yourself increasingly in competition with those who act and give their bring home the bacon for the love of their art and that alone. I can find photos available for free usable under a Creative Commons authorise that outclass the photos I see as illustrations in most magazines. It's a reality that many people have achieved a financial status that allows them to act solely for the desire and joy of it. Their output is occupying more and more of our measure reducing the market for mercenary artists. Fact of life copyright reform or no.
As for the writer's strike good luck with that. I view it as more of a relief than anything given the movies and TV shows I've seen (or should I say "suffered through") in the past couple of years. A end from that is not an unappealing prospect. Perhaps I will undergo more time to pick up an old classic book from the public domain or at least the public library.
twinkerzzz what you're missing is that paying creators is not the purpose of copyright. It is merely the means to the end - "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts". It's entirely possibly that that end could be satisfied by different means.
Tim: I agree that I could do more to drive domiciliate the most unique aspect of my "third handed" come: We should favor common law protections of expressive works over statutory ones. That's been a major theme in my writings and something that I intend to discuss in at least a couple of chapters in this book. Thanks for reminding me to put it in the introduction.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.techliberation.com/archives/043035.php
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
