If the DRM was really there to prevent piracy of your work, the company wouldn’t object to you taking the DRM off the works when you felt it best. After all, it’s never piracy when the author or publisher permits someone to do something with their copyrighted work.
Not really, if you realize that piracy affects the webstore as well as the author. Even if the author is fine with the lost income, the store may not be. It’s the same deal with agents. If you try to do something for altruistic reasons that affects your income, don’t expect your agent to be fine with it.
STOP APPLYING COPYRIGHT TO ANYONE EXCEPT THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
Really? So people who write non-fiction get no copyright? As a scientist, I see the advantage for not having copyright on scientific papers, as I get no payment for those anyway, but do you really expect that people who write science popularizations or historical works shouldn’t be able to copyright their works?
In the article he makes it clear the distinction is between culture and industry, not fiction and nonfiction.
What he is saying is that should be part of the negotiations. If you want to pay an agent and a webstore to host your product out of your own pocket (consider it advertising) why should you not be able to?
“Any time someone puts a lock on something that belongs to you and won’t give you the key, that lock isn’t there for your benefit”
As a transgender submissive bisexual male who enjoys being cock-locked by my partners I disagree with this.
I think Cory is talking about enforcing copyright against people not in the entertainment industry (as opposed to not granting copyright to people not in the industry). The example he uses is requiring a 12 year-old making a Harry Potter fan site to have to go through the same licensing procedures as a company looking for rights to make a Harry Potter cartoon series for TV. If I understand where Cory is going, it would mean a broadening of “fair use” to clearly include things like having a song playng in the background of a YouTube video, the substance of which is about how to apply makeup or something. Nobody should have to get a license for that kind of use, or for making a fan site. Nobody should be threatened with a take-down notice for that either. Inversely, an artist or company should not be at risk of losing their rights for allows that kind of use.
I haven’t read the book but I hope this idea is explored in a little more detail - change is definitely needed, but I’d like to see a specific proposal beyond broad strokes.
I was so happy to see album artwork from one of my projects on BoingBoing. The record was released under a Creative Commons license, a decision inspired by articles I’d read here. The art for the album is mostly remixes of classic public domain WPA posters, and the cover art was designed by Alphabet Arm.
The album is at wpamusic.bandcamp.com.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is: Attribute!! Oh, the irony.
EDIT: Artwork is now credited! Thank you, Cory.
If all relevant parties are fine with such an agreement, then great, you should be able to (and can do so today). My point is once you bring in a second party like a publisher, web store, or agent, you can’t just say the decision is “out of your own pocket” because other pockets are also involved.
Yes, it’s just that “the entertainment industry” is not the best term for what he wants to express if presumably he is referring to the entire industry of which entertainments are just a part.
Content wants to be free, as in move. The value is anything, money, information, etc. is in dynamic- reaching more people. Money isn’t free- you have to earn it or exchange for it- but it has little value when it sits. Witness the $3 trillion currently on the sidelines in the US. Put that in motion and there is a major uptick in the ‘economy’.
Information, especially when it has value, wants to move around, be shared. And what is the appropriate exchange for that value differs greatly depending on many factors. Copyright is one concept of how to manage or handle that value, and modern channels of information sharing clearly challenge that.
Simplification might be attractive, but it is going to involve reducing the options for how we manage and there will be some winners and some losers. Do these two ideas actually accomplish more good than not? Not clear to me. And especially likely to be challenged by many existing interests.
DRM is a fail mainly because it clogs up the movement. Transactions need to be easy. When stealing takes less trouble than buying, people will steal. Even when they would like to buy. Unfortunately the way many powerful content distribution companies have responded is treating their customers- who they like to call consumers- as dishonest, compounding the problem by offending their source of income.
Like this discussion. Don’t get how these ideas resolve the issues. Definitely think this site needs to give attribution when they use/borrow others work.
CORY- put up the attribution for the artwork, please. Don’t make this mistake again, please.
“mockery of out”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.