Yavor Doganov informed me, that Richard Stallman published a new version of his article "Freedom or Copyright" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html. I await your cmments :)
Best wishes, Matthias
Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
Yavor Doganov informed me, that Richard Stallman published a new version of his article "Freedom or Copyright" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html. I await your cmments :)
Generally speaking I share Richard Stallman's opinion, but I'm not sure whether Copyright was a good idea. But you can't alter the past and now it's time to abolish such laws, because they inhibit a more effective production by factitious stringency and therefore allow everyone to take part in cultural development. But fighting against the culture industry - an industry that is producing "culture" like a factory produces commodities - is a difficult challenge.
Does the FSF Europe send such great articles to politicians who are making decisions about Digital Restrictions Management? I think it would be a valuable addition for their world view and their small world.
Best wishes, Matthias
In Solidarity Matthias-Christian
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 19:47 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
But fighting against the culture industry - an industry that is producing "culture" like a factory produces commodities - is a difficult challenge.
That honestly sounds like a very elitist view of "culture". I don't see why that "culture industry" needs to be fought against, some of the finest works have come out of commercial ventures.
I agree with RMS's opinions on DRM and functional works. I'm not sure that the gift economy system he's espousing is necessarily a winning formula - if we work on the premise that people should be economically rewarded for their efforts, I don't see any compelling reason to say that one system of remuneration is better than another for cultural works. They seem like completely different arguments to me.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 19:47 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
But fighting against the culture industry - an industry that is producing "culture" like a factory produces commodities - is a difficult challenge.
That honestly sounds like a very elitist view of "culture". I don't see why that "culture industry" needs to be fought against, some of the finest works have come out of commercial ventures.
It's not an elitist view of "culture" - it's the direct opposite. The current "mode of production" of culture is very elitist and there's no diversity. This diversity doesn't only refer to people, but also to content, style etc.
I agree with RMS's opinions on DRM and functional works. I'm not sure that the gift economy system he's espousing is necessarily a winning formula - if we work on the premise that people should be economically rewarded for their efforts, I don't see any compelling reason to say that one system of remuneration is better than another for cultural works. They seem like completely different arguments to me.
Richard Stallman also outlined a tax based system in his talks. But I don't see a problem in such a gift economy, except that it requires some kind of emancipation, because people have to voluntarily donate and have to give up this trading paradigm of the direct exchange of money and commodity.
Donating money works fine for Free Software projects - so why shouldn't it work for "culture"?
Cheers,
Alex.
Regards Matthias-Christian
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 20:37 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
That honestly sounds like a very elitist view of "culture". I don't see why that "culture industry" needs to be fought against, some of the finest works have come out of commercial ventures.
It's not an elitist view of "culture" - it's the direct opposite. The current "mode of production" of culture is very elitist and there's no diversity. This diversity doesn't only refer to people, but also to content, style etc.
I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with that mode of production - clearly there are many things wrong with it. But I disagree about the diversity, and I disagree with needing to "fight" against it. It's like complaining about McDonald's, it may not fit your idea of cuisine, but it doesn't stop you opening up your own restaurant.
Arguably, mankind has never produced as much cultural output as it currently does now, and I would wager it's much more diverse than any time period previously.
Richard Stallman also outlined a tax based system in his talks. But I don't see a problem in such a gift economy, except that it requires some kind of emancipation, because people have to voluntarily donate and have to give up this trading paradigm of the direct exchange of money and commodity.
Donating money works fine for Free Software projects - so why shouldn't it work for "culture"?
Again, I have no problem with a gift economy, except for the suggestion that it should be "the way" rather than "a way". There are substantial problems with gift economies which many academics have written about: there's nothing wrong with making money that way, but it's no perfect solution.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 20:37 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
That honestly sounds like a very elitist view of "culture". I don't see why that "culture industry" needs to be fought against, some of the finest works have come out of commercial ventures.
It's not an elitist view of "culture" - it's the direct opposite. The current "mode of production" of culture is very elitist and there's no diversity. This diversity doesn't only refer to people, but also to content, style etc.
I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with that mode of production - clearly there are many things wrong with it. But I disagree about the diversity, and I disagree with needing to "fight" against it. It's like complaining about McDonald's, it may not fit your idea of cuisine, but it doesn't stop you opening up your own restaurant.
Sure, if you stick to law you can open a restaurant. You could also compose your own music for example, but if there's a huge industry which is flooding the market with advertisements and repeating certain songs over and over again you have no chance, because they are "indoctrinating" the people and they make them "dependent" by DRM. It may be not conscious to you, but in reality our consciousness is not static it's shaped by society and especially by the media.
Or do you think the average Joe will search for "free (as in freedom) music by artist I don't know who is not advertised and is making music not because of money jut because he likes to share his music with others"? People think that music (or a commodity) is worthless if everyone it's free (as in freedom) or/and gratis. Why? Because they were told so from the beginning of their lives. Lots of people just adapt some music because everyone does it.
Just look at the German "Schlager" music: It's music with the same contents and composition, produced for masses, sold and promoted by mass media. (Again my opinion is not elitist, but I don't believe millions of people voluntarily and simultaneously decide to buy and listen to one single song, because it's so great. Humans are very diverse (that's in fact really great), so I can't believe that.)
You could substitute "Schlager" with virtually any other popular genre.
I mean theoretically you can do whatever you want, but reality looks different.
Arguably, mankind has never produced as much cultural output as it currently does now, and I would wager it's much more diverse than any time period previously.
Quantity is not always quality. Mc Donalds makes millions of Burgers per day, but it doesn't make them healthy or our nutrition diverse. Opening other junk food restaurants also doesn't make our nutrition diverse - it's still junk food.
Richard Stallman also outlined a tax based system in his talks. But I don't see a problem in such a gift economy, except that it requires some kind of emancipation, because people have to voluntarily donate and have to give up this trading paradigm of the direct exchange of money and commodity.
Donating money works fine for Free Software projects - so why shouldn't it work for "culture"?
Again, I have no problem with a gift economy, except for the suggestion that it should be "the way" rather than "a way". There are substantial problems with gift economies which many academics have written about: there's nothing wrong with making money that way, but it's no perfect solution.
Do you have some openly accessible academic works that you cite. Maybe you could sum it up in your own words or so. Because the only thing that's wrong with such a gift economy with our economical framework is the consciousness of the people. But as the first artists stop making art, people will recognise, that it's absolutely necessary to donate.
Cheers,
Alex.
Regards Matthias-Christian
On 08/02/2008, Matthias-Christian Ott ott@enolink.de wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
Again, I have no problem with a gift economy, except for the suggestion that it should be "the way" rather than "a way". There are substantial problems with gift economies which many academics have written about: there's nothing wrong with making money that way, but it's no perfect solution.
Do you have some openly accessible academic works that you cite. Maybe you could sum it up in your own words or so. Because the only thing that's wrong with such a gift economy with our economical framework is the consciousness of the people. But as the first artists stop making art, people will recognise, that it's absolutely necessary to donate.
I too would be *most* interested in actual citations to this claimed academic viewpoint, because I'm amazed never to have encountered such a thing ever before.
- d.
Hi Alex - still waiting on references to those many academics writing about substantial problems with gift economies. I look forward to reading them!
- d.
On 08/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/02/2008, Matthias-Christian Ott ott@enolink.de wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
Again, I have no problem with a gift economy, except for the suggestion that it should be "the way" rather than "a way". There are substantial problems with gift economies which many academics have written about: there's nothing wrong with making money that way, but it's no perfect solution.
Do you have some openly accessible academic works that you cite. Maybe you could sum it up in your own words or so. Because the only thing that's wrong with such a gift economy with our economical framework is the consciousness of the people. But as the first artists stop making art, people will recognise, that it's absolutely necessary to donate.
I too would be *most* interested in actual citations to this claimed academic viewpoint, because I'm amazed never to have encountered such a thing ever before.
- d.
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 18:08 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
Hi Alex - still waiting on references to those many academics writing about substantial problems with gift economies. I look forward to reading them!
Well, I was actually asked for online accessible references, which I don't have - but if you're willing to buy papers, buy a book, go to a library, etc., I'm sure there's plenty of stuff you can read, for example:
The Question of the Gift: Essays Across Disciplines, Mark Osteen Derrida's Debt to Milton Friedman, Michael Tratner Competition and Entrepreneurship, Israel M. Kirzner
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 18:08 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
Hi Alex - still waiting on references to those many academics writing about substantial problems with gift economies. I look forward to reading them!
Well, I was actually asked for online accessible references, which I don't have - but if you're willing to buy papers, buy a book, go to a library, etc., I'm sure there's plenty of stuff you can read, for example:
The Question of the Gift: Essays Across Disciplines, Mark Osteen Derrida's Debt to Milton Friedman, Michael Tratner Competition and Entrepreneurship, Israel M. Kirzner
Can you please explain the fundamental idea behind the critique of gift economy? Within the current economical framework I don't see any problems, except the attitude of the people, because the have to be willing to voluntarily donate. So artists who are liked by the people earn money and others who are not liked do not. So where is the problem?
Cheers,
Alex.
Regards Matthias-Christian
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 22:03 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Can you please explain the fundamental idea behind the critique of gift economy? Within the current economical framework I don't see any problems, except the attitude of the people, because the have to be willing to voluntarily donate. So artists who are liked by the people earn money and others who are not liked do not. So where is the problem?
So, just to examine a single problem we both recognise, you think it's ok that artists who are not personally likable are not able to earn a living creating art in this economy?
That sounds like a recipe for Stuckism, but not one for promoting the arts.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 21:48 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Sure, if you stick to law you can open a restaurant. You could also compose your own music for example, but if there's a huge industry which is flooding the market with advertisements and repeating certain songs over and over again you have no chance, because they are "indoctrinating" the people and they make them "dependent" by DRM.
You're confusing two entirely different issues. DRM is a technical issue, and large sections of the music market are already rejecting it. The perceived size/power/etc. of the music industry is almost completely unrelated, since it's only really direct sales of music online which have DRM applied in any case.
Or do you think the average Joe will search for "free (as in freedom) music by artist I don't know who is not advertised and is making music not because of money jut because he likes to share his music with others"?
I don't think that's relevant. We have more people being paid to create music right now than at any time previously, and the advertisements etc. are what build cultural awareness of music. Music isn't culturally more valuable if it isn't advertised, or if the musician is poor - actually, it's usually the complete inverse of that.
Just look at the German "Schlager" music: It's music with the same contents and composition, produced for masses, sold and promoted by mass media.
You're passing a judgement on the quality of the culture based on the mode of production. That's what I meant by 'elitist'.
Again, I have no problem with a gift economy, except for the suggestion that it should be "the way" rather than "a way". There are substantial problems with gift economies which many academics have written about: there's nothing wrong with making money that way, but it's no perfect solution.
Do you have some openly accessible academic works that you cite.
It depends on which aspect of the criticism you wish to look at. Gift economies deal badly with scarcity (abundance is virtually a pre-requisite by definition), and while that works from a materials point of view (little/no material required to manufacture digital works themselves), the actual copying can only take place once the works are actually created.
Fundamentally, the main issue is participation - the lack of it. I heard Jimmy Wales say the other day that Wikipedia is primarily authored by some figure in the low thousands, yet is consumed by probably millions. See, e.g., particularly the references in this paper:
"Although the communities that facilitate such economies are themselves unstable and rely, like other ‘alternative’ economic systems, upon a narrow band of active participants, such gift economies may emerge as the most significant and problematic legacy of the ‘new economy’"
-- http://www.geog.nottingham.ac.uk/~leyshon/Scary%20Monsters%202002.PDF
Because the only thing that's wrong with such a gift economy with our economical framework is the consciousness of the people. But as the first artists stop making art, people will recognise, that it's absolutely necessary to donate.
Donation is no way to reward people. It subjugates them, and turns them into beggars. Art by patronage exists but is limited, but having moved into a world where artists are properly paid for work and not reliant on hand-outs, I doubt the majority of artists would go back.
That's the fundamental economic difference between this idea and free software: free software essentially precludes a single business model from several. This gift system effectively precludes all business models. That's unjustifiable.
Cheers,
Alex.
Actually the Wikipedia thing has been more or less thoroughly debunked. Whereas it is true that a very small minority (I think about 2000 people) are responsible for an overwhelming number of edits, it turns out their edits tend to be minor in character: fixing style, citations, that kind of thing. Most of the contentful edits are made by people who edit little.
--David.
On 09/02/2008, David Picón Álvarez eleuteri@myrealbox.com wrote:
Actually the Wikipedia thing has been more or less thoroughly debunked. Whereas it is true that a very small minority (I think about 2000 people) are responsible for an overwhelming number of edits, it turns out their edits tend to be minor in character: fixing style, citations, that kind of thing. Most of the contentful edits are made by people who edit little.
Not "debunked" - both are true. Most of the actual text is written by anonymous contributors, then the editing and shaping of that (which is non-trivial work) is done by a smaller core group. Mind you, that "core" is in the thousands in any given month - the last month we have numbers for is Oct 2006, when it was 4300 editors on English Wikipedia with >100 edits, and 43,006 with >5 edits.
Also: most articles are uncontroversial, and written by one or two people; only a very few have any controversy over their content.
Greg Maxwell (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell) does lots of statistical evaluations of the Wikimedia projects.
- d.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 21:48 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Sure, if you stick to law you can open a restaurant. You could also compose your own music for example, but if there's a huge industry which is flooding the market with advertisements and repeating certain songs over and over again you have no chance, because they are "indoctrinating" the people and they make them "dependent" by DRM.
You're confusing two entirely different issues. DRM is a technical issue, and large sections of the music market are already rejecting it. The perceived size/power/etc. of the music industry is almost completely unrelated, since it's only really direct sales of music online which have DRM applied in any case.
I didn't say that DRM is a source of evil for culture itself, but for the accessibility of culture. Digital Restrictions Management is a technique make consumers dependent after having stimulated them, because DRM is a control mechanism and dependence arises form this control. This control means control of the market, because DRM helps to maintain factitious scarcity. This stimulation results in demand and due to the "stable" scarcity in "stable" prices which is desirable for the culture industry.
Thus DRM restricts the user for the benefit of the industry.
But maybe the emphasis an DRM in connection with the topic was not that appropriate, because the main point is the stimulation which results in monotone culture.
Or do you think the average Joe will search for "free (as in freedom) music by artist I don't know who is not advertised and is making music not because of money jut because he likes to share his music with others"?
I don't think that's relevant. We have more people being paid to create music right now than at any time previously, and the advertisements etc. are what build cultural awareness of music. Music isn't culturally more valuable if it isn't advertised, or if the musician is poor - actually, it's usually the complete inverse of that.
I can't really understand what you mean.
Just look at the German "Schlager" music: It's music with the same contents and composition, produced for masses, sold and promoted by mass media.
You're passing a judgement on the quality of the culture based on the mode of production. That's what I meant by 'elitist'.
I don't see why this is elitist. But essentially my critique is a critique of the mode of production.
Again, I have no problem with a gift economy, except for the suggestion that it should be "the way" rather than "a way". There are substantial problems with gift economies which many academics have written about: there's nothing wrong with making money that way, but it's no perfect solution.
Do you have some openly accessible academic works that you cite.
It depends on which aspect of the criticism you wish to look at. Gift economies deal badly with scarcity (abundance is virtually a pre-requisite by definition), and while that works from a materials point of view (little/no material required to manufacture digital works themselves), the actual copying can only take place once the works are actually created.
Fundamentally, the main issue is participation - the lack of it. I heard Jimmy Wales say the other day that Wikipedia is primarily authored by some figure in the low thousands, yet is consumed by probably millions. See, e.g., particularly the references in this paper:
"Although the communities that facilitate such economies are themselves unstable and rely, like other ‘alternative’ economic systems, upon a narrow band of active participants, such gift economies may emerge as the most significant and problematic legacy of the ‘new economy’"-- http://www.geog.nottingham.ac.uk/~leyshon/Scary%20Monsters%202002.PDF
A gift economy doesn't really mean that some is producing for example music like someone is producing chairs. In a gift economy nobody will ever become very rich, maybe just a few people work full time. The donations are just necessary to make it possible for the artist to survive, because his aim is not money it's just arts.
Because the only thing that's wrong with such a gift economy with our economical framework is the consciousness of the people. But as the first artists stop making art, people will recognise, that it's absolutely necessary to donate.
Donation is no way to reward people. It subjugates them, and turns them into beggars. Art by patronage exists but is limited, but having moved into a world where artists are properly paid for work and not reliant on hand-outs, I doubt the majority of artists would go back.
That's the fundamental economic difference between this idea and free software: free software essentially precludes a single business model from several. This gift system effectively precludes all business models. That's unjustifiable.
Well, that's your opinion. If you do everything just because of money and to get rich, we have different world views. I didn't say that gift economies work as well as scarcity economies in terms of making money. I just said it's possible with a little help from the solidarity of the people. You wont become a millionaire by accepting donations, but I could do concerts etc.
Cheers,
Alex.
Regards Matthias-Christian
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 22:48 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
You're passing a judgement on the quality of the culture based on the mode of production. That's what I meant by 'elitist'.
I don't see why this is elitist. But essentially my critique is a critique of the mode of production.
It's elitist because you're saying art produced and not given away is worth less than art given away.
That's the fundamental economic difference between this idea and free software: free software essentially precludes a single business model from several. This gift system effectively precludes all business models. That's unjustifiable.
Well, that's your opinion. If you do everything just because of money and to get rich, we have different world views. I didn't say that gift economies work as well as scarcity economies in terms of making money. I just said it's possible with a little help from the solidarity of the people. You wont become a millionaire by accepting donations, but I could do concerts etc.
We're not arguing over whether or not it's "possible", of course gift economies are possible - they exist.
And your statement that you won't become a millionaire is also patently false. RMS' example of Radiohead - who hadn't made a penny from digital art before they effectively gave away "In Rainbows" - made millions of dollars.
The high-profile artists will make large amounts of money in virtually every type of economy other than a communist/planned economy. If your goal is to prevent people from getting rich, a gift economy isn't what you want.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 22:48 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
You're passing a judgement on the quality of the culture based on the mode of production. That's what I meant by 'elitist'.
I don't see why this is elitist. But essentially my critique is a critique of the mode of production.
It's elitist because you're saying art produced and not given away is worth less than art given away.
I don't understand what you mean. Search Wikipedia for culture industry to get an idea of what it means. That's all I have to say.
That's the fundamental economic difference between this idea and free software: free software essentially precludes a single business model from several. This gift system effectively precludes all business models. That's unjustifiable.
Well, that's your opinion. If you do everything just because of money and to get rich, we have different world views. I didn't say that gift economies work as well as scarcity economies in terms of making money. I just said it's possible with a little help from the solidarity of the people. You wont become a millionaire by accepting donations, but I could do concerts etc.
We're not arguing over whether or not it's "possible", of course gift economies are possible - they exist.
And your statement that you won't become a millionaire is also patently false. RMS' example of Radiohead - who hadn't made a penny from digital art before they effectively gave away "In Rainbows" - made millions of dollars.
The high-profile artists will make large amounts of money in virtually every type of economy other than a communist/planned economy. If your goal is to prevent people from getting rich, a gift economy isn't what you want.
I was supporting this kind of system as a huge compromise within the economical framework to produce another consciousness.
Just critically analyse and question the term "high-profile". Think about demand and how it's created, ...
But generally I think we talk at cross purposes with different intentions, world views or what ever you call it in mind. This discussion leads (under the current conditions) to nothing else than confusion and misunderstandings. This is the typical result of such a discussion in the end there are just beliefs and opinions.
Cheers,
Alex.
Goodnight Matthias-Christian
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 00:15 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
It's elitist because you're saying art produced and not given away is worth less than art given away.
I don't understand what you mean. Search Wikipedia for culture industry to get an idea of what it means. That's all I have to say.
I'm aware of the theory of cultural industry, I just think it completely misses the point.
It's fine to evaluate art on an intellectual level, and much art has important things to say about the world we live in. However, that's not the only thing which makes art worthwhile, and "culture industry" theory neglects many of the roles of popular art: for example, a film could be hugely entertaining - like "Pirates of the Carribean" - but because it's mass-produced and has nothing intellectually to say, it's worthless art? That's complete nonsense.
But generally I think we talk at cross purposes with different intentions, world views or what ever you call it in mind. This discussion leads (under the current conditions) to nothing else than confusion and misunderstandings. This is the typical result of such a discussion in the end there are just beliefs and opinions.
I agree, there are just beliefs and opinions, but I think you're proposing a much more absolutist position than I am. I think artists should be free to earn money for their work pretty much however they please; I don't think it should be limited to patronage/begging.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 00:15 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
It's elitist because you're saying art produced and not given away is worth less than art given away.
I don't understand what you mean. Search Wikipedia for culture industry to get an idea of what it means. That's all I have to say.
I'm aware of the theory of cultural industry, I just think it completely misses the point.
It's fine to evaluate art on an intellectual level, and much art has important things to say about the world we live in. However, that's not the only thing which makes art worthwhile, and "culture industry" theory neglects many of the roles of popular art: for example, a film could be hugely entertaining - like "Pirates of the Carribean" - but because it's mass-produced and has nothing intellectually to say, it's worthless art? That's complete nonsense.
You have to examine and take in account the philosophical and psychological background and you will recognise that it's not complete nonsense.
But of course there's not this holy unique truth.
Cheers,
Alex.
Regards Matthias-Christian
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
I think artists should be free to earn money for their work pretty much however they please; I don't think it should be limited to patronage/begging.
I agree. The means they use should not, however, restrict the freedom of a legitimate recipient of a cultural work to do whatever they like with it. Any sort of monopoly that extends to the actions of recipients (e.g. copyright) breaks this.
In other words, the author's freedom to attempt to earn a living ends at the limits deliniated by the freedoms of others to engage in transactions that don't involve them.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 08:18 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
I think artists should be free to earn money for their work pretty much however they please; I don't think it should be limited to patronage/begging.
I agree. The means they use should not, however, restrict the freedom of a legitimate recipient of a cultural work to do whatever they like with it.
Out of interest, why?
I can quite happily accept that some consumers will only accept such works, but I have never seen a good exposition of the moral imperative for such a position.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 08:18 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
I think artists should be free to earn money for their work pretty much however they please; I don't think it should be limited to patronage/begging.
I agree. The means they use should not, however, restrict the freedom of a legitimate recipient of a cultural work to do whatever they like with it.
Out of interest, why?
I can quite happily accept that some consumers will only accept such works, but I have never seen a good exposition of the moral imperative for such a position.
It follows from the idea that freedom for an individual should be limited only by the harm done to the freedoms of others.
The freedom of the author is not harmed when recipient A redistributes a work to recipient B. Therefore the freedoms of recipients A and B to engage in such a transaction should not be impinged by the author.
Conversely, if the powers of the author extend such that she can artificially restrict a transaction between A and B, that's an unacceptable limitation on their freedom.
This meshes with the idea of the "doctrine of first sale". Once recipient A and the author have engaged in a transaction to transfer a copy of the work to recipient A, that is the end of the author's negotiation for that copy.
If she wants to bind recipient A to restrict further transactions with third parties, that's a matter for contract negotiation before the first sale; and such negotiations should only bind willing parties to the contract. Recipient A could breach the contract and redistribute to recipient B outside the terms, and the author only has freedom to seek redress from recipient A. Since recipient B was not party to the contract with the author, they are not bound at all in their freedom with the work they now possess.
This makes obsolete many current business models that are propped up by artificial monopoly power. But it doesn't do anything but preserve the freedom of individuals in their own domain. Business models that can't exist without preserving that *deserve* to become obsolete.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 09:42 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
The freedom of the author is not harmed when recipient A redistributes a work to recipient B. Therefore the freedoms of recipients A and B to engage in such a transaction should not be impinged by the author.
Conversely, if the powers of the author extend such that she can artificially restrict a transaction between A and B, that's an unacceptable limitation on their freedom.
But surely the whole problem in this field is that the two freedoms are not independent, and the issue is where you place the balance between the two?
For example, the freedom to earn a living / ability to control one's labour - RMS suggested that only non-commercial transactions should be exempt; where do you place that balance?
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
For example, the freedom to earn a living
The freedom to *attempt* to earn a living is all that I can justify. If someone chooses a business model that infringes the rights of other people, there's no "right to earn a living" doing that.
Likewise, if someone just chooses a *stupid* business model, or even fails utterly at a *good* business model, they don't have "the right to earn a living" regardless.
ability to control one's labour
I don't see how an author has any right to control their labour that extends beyond *where they put* their labour.
Once they've given their labour in exchange for some mutual consideration, they have no "right" to control what the other party does with it; just as a person whistling a tune has no "right" to control what I do with that tune once it's in my head.
The dividing line I draw is: freedom is being able to determine one's own actions and thoughts, without harming or being harmed by others. Extending that to attempts to restrict or enforce actions by others is going beyond freedom into *power* over others, which is *not* a right.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 20:18 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
I don't see how an author has any right to control their labour that extends beyond *where they put* their labour.
Once they've given their labour in exchange for some mutual consideration, they have no "right" to control what the other party does with it; just as a person whistling a tune has no "right" to control what I do with that tune once it's in my head.
Sure, but "mutual consideration" doesn't mean "this is what your labour is worth". A consideration can be much less than the actual value of something.
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k. Nobody is going to buy a copy of that film at that price. They probably would spend $10 on a copy, but that's not the true value of the film and therefore someone spending $10 on a copy of the film shouldn't expect to have the right to do what they wanted with that film as if it were theirs.
I'm not saying that anyone has a right to be able to do this kind of thing profitably, but there is a balance here: if it's not possible to do something viably for a living, then few people if any will do it.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k.
This is a bad example since the only reason films cost so much is because copyright law has become completely broken due to the lobbying of a small number of very rich companies.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 09:50 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k.
This is a bad example since the only reason films cost so much is because copyright law has become completely broken due to the lobbying of a small number of very rich companies.
To create a film, you have to pay people to write a script or screenplay, hire the equipment to film it, hire people to film it (skilled operators, actors, directors), rent an editing suite and editor to edit the film, create any music needed, rent a sound stage to create any other audio needed, and that's all before you get to marketing and distribution.
The costs I'm mentioning are the costs of creating an independent film. With the best will in the world, I don't see how much of that cost is attributable to large film companies. As a pretty obvious example:
http://orange.blender.org/theteam
No actors, no cameras, no filming costs. I count over fifty people involved with that production, before you count those credited institutionally, virtually all of whom donated their time, the rendering farm was donated, people pre-ordered DVDs and/or donated money to the cause. Regardless of all those donations of time, it still full-time people employed to work on the film. Totalled up, all this donation of time, services and money would easily surpass $100k - I would bet employing six people along probably cost nearly that.
And this isn't even a film, it's a short. Costs don't rise linearly with running time, but they certainly rise.
So on what basis is $100k expensive for a film?
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
So on what basis is $100k expensive for a film?
In the case of a bunch of low-budget art students wanting to make a film in Brussels, EUR70,000 kills the project.
The need to clear the rights for the background advertisements, music which may be playing nearby, and even copyrighted facades and monuments kills the project.
So the low-budget film-maker doesn't exist (because of copyright). This has the knock-on effect that there is no market for reasonably priced equipment and related services.
For making a 3D animated film, or something with experienced actors, there will be inherent costs, but people only make the assumption that all films involve 3D annimation or expensive actors because copyright law makes it reasonable to assume that all film-makers have six figure budgets.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 10:47 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
So on what basis is $100k expensive for a film?
In the case of a bunch of low-budget art students wanting to make a film in Brussels, EUR70,000 kills the project.
That doesn't really answer my question.
Sure, clearing rights can be expensive. It can also be avoidable, though.
What isn't avoidable is the basic cost of creating a film. It takes a lot of people, it takes time and equipment, and it costs money.
Copyright had no effect that I can see on the "Elephant Dreams" short, and I would estimate its cost at $150k. There is nothing in there that I could see would suddenly become fundamentally cheaper if copyright was for whatever reason non-existent.
Cheers,
Alex.
Hi Alex,
* Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2008-02-11 11:59:47 +0000]:
Sure, clearing rights can be expensive. It can also be avoidable, though.
How is it avoidable?
Best wishes, Matthias
Sure, but "mutual consideration" doesn't mean "this is what your labour is worth". A consideration can be much less than the actual value of something.
Sure, but then it's not like workers in general receive the full fruits of their labour either, but rather the reproduction cost of their labour power, so, that is life under current economic conditions.
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k. Nobody is going to buy a copy of that film at that price. They probably would spend $10 on a copy, but that's not the true value of the film and therefore someone spending $10 on a copy of the film shouldn't expect to have the right to do what they wanted with that film as if it were theirs.
As I see it, if you want to do something as complex as a film, you're going to have to get funding in advance. You should charge the production costs for the first copy. How this is to be done is not yet clear, it could be through advertising, it could be through user-based grants for films where people put money aside and a board allocates it to projects in advance, or it could not even be possible and not happen at all. After all, under current economic conditions, pyramids are not possible either, such is life.
Speaking of which, this model of funding before, and not after, the work, seems to work well for architecture, so it might end up working for films in the future, or it might not.
I'm not saying that anyone has a right to be able to do this kind of thing profitably, but there is a balance here: if it's not possible to do something viably for a living, then few people if any will do it.
Yeah, few pyramids being built today, or large scale cathedrals. Architecturally a pity, but such is life.
--David.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k.
I don't know why you set the lower bound so high. I've seen many entertaining films made for $1000 or even $200. I can't imagine the enormous wealth of films made and released (by their creators) on YouTube et al. would cost much more than that.
Nobody is going to buy a copy of that film at that price.
Buy a copy? No. I would think the masses of films that get made never sell a single copy. That clearly doesn't stop them being made, though.
They probably would spend $10 on a copy, but that's not the true value of the film
I deny your assumption that there is such a thing as "the true value of the film", independent of anyone's willingness to pay for it.
and therefore someone spending $10 on a copy of the film shouldn't expect to have the right to do what they wanted with that film as if it were theirs.
In the absence of copyright, if the film creator doesn't want people to have copies, they shouldn't distribute it. I don't see how that would stop films being made at all. Perhaps people wouldn't put $100000 into a film; but films would still be made, and still be entertaining and even worth watching.
Just because a person puts an enormous amount of money into building a pyramid doesn't mean they have any right to see any of that money return to them. People will decide what it's worth to them to have it built in the first place, or to maintain it once it's built.
I'm not saying that anyone has a right to be able to do this kind of thing profitably, but there is a balance here: if it's not possible to do something viably for a living, then few people if any will do it.
I deny your implication that copyright is the only way to allow creative endeavours to make a living. It's up to the creator to figure out a way to make money from their labour. They just don't have any right to impinge on others' freedom while they do so.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 23:37 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k.
I don't know why you set the lower bound so high. I've seen many entertaining films made for $1000 or even $200.
I set out the basis of the costs in a previous e-mail.
Look, I've seen street performers do very entertaining things in the street for change, from poetry to plays. That's not a serious alternative to theatre, though.
In the absence of copyright, if the film creator doesn't want people to have copies, they shouldn't distribute it. I don't see how that would stop films being made at all. Perhaps people wouldn't put $100000 into a film; but films would still be made, and still be entertaining and even worth watching.
If people aren't willing to put $100k into a film, what you're saying effectively is that film as an art form is dead, because that doesn't pay for two person-years, let alone the equipment and all the other costs.
No commercial films would be made, and some significant proportion of the amateur film-makers wouldn't be working either because many of them are doing it as amateurs as their way into the industry.
Don't mistake this as me saying that copyright is required; I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that in order to create film, people have to have an income somehow which allows them to work on the film. It's as simple as that.
Cheers,
Alex.
Just because a person puts an enormous amount of money into building a pyramid doesn't mean they have any right to see any of that money return to them. People will decide what it's worth to them to have it built in the first place, or to maintain it once it's built.
I'm not saying that anyone has a right to be able to do this kind of thing profitably, but there is a balance here: if it's not possible to do something viably for a living, then few people if any will do it.
I deny your implication that copyright is the only way to allow creative endeavours to make a living. It's up to the creator to figure out a way to make money from their labour. They just don't have any right to impinge on others' freedom while they do so.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 23:37 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k.
I don't know why you set the lower bound so high. I've seen many entertaining films made for $1000 or even $200.
I set out the basis of the costs in a previous e-mail.
Look, I've seen street performers do very entertaining things in the street for change, from poetry to plays. That's not a serious alternative to theatre, though.
Why? A lot of "street performances" are very spontaneous and not thoughtful, but I see no reason for generalising this.
Cheers,
Alex.
Regards Matthias-Christian
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 14:40 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
Look, I've seen street performers do very entertaining things in the street for change, from poetry to plays. That's not a serious alternative to theatre, though.
Why? A lot of "street performances" are very spontaneous and not thoughtful, but I see no reason for generalising this.
It's not about thoughtfulness or preparation; it's simply that it's a different art form in the same medium. I would say the same thing about theatre and film: they're superficially similar, but theatre is not a serious alternative to film (and vice versa).
There's nothing wrong with street performance, but it's only good for certain things: short performances, simple stories. Performing a three-hour play in the street is really the wrong setting; for one thing, people need to sit down, and most people won't spontaneously take three hours out of their plans.
It's the same with film. Short, low-budget films are fine. But film also includes long, complex films like "Ben Hur", "10000 Years BC", "Dr Strangelove", etc., and none of those could be sensibly made on a small budget. Even a "low budget" film like "Crash" (Haggis, not Cronenberg) cost $6.5 million, and even then money was so tight that the director filmed parts of it in his own house and using his own car, and borrowed part of its set from a TV show.
Saying that low budget versions of a similar art form are enough that we don't need the big budget versions is a very sad sentiment indeed. I wouldn't want to lose any of those films I mentioned, or any of the hundreds of other excellent big-budget films that get made every year.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 09:38 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 20:18 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
I don't see how an author has any right to control their labour that extends beyond *where they put* their labour.
Once they've given their labour in exchange for some mutual consideration, they have no "right" to control what the other party does with it; just as a person whistling a tune has no "right" to control what I do with that tune once it's in my head.
Sure, but "mutual consideration" doesn't mean "this is what your labour is worth". A consideration can be much less than the actual value of something.
Then maybe the value was not so high? I can do very costly junk, that doesn't entitle me to force people to buy it.
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k. Nobody is going to buy a copy of that film at that price. They probably would spend $10 on a copy, but that's not the true value of the film and therefore someone spending $10 on a copy of the film shouldn't expect to have the right to do what they wanted with that film as if it were theirs.
This is simple, you make a contract, before the film is ready to be shipped, with the major theaters, so that you are sure you will get enough money to cover the costs. Once that is done you have your money back (and probably something more) anything else that comes is just a plus and should not be enforced.
Also consider donations or funding from rich people that likes your work. They work too in many (and I'd say more important some times) fields, like *science* or less popular art forms.
Please make a better example, and make it clear if you refer to survival or to the right to become rich.
I'm not saying that anyone has a right to be able to do this kind of thing profitably, but there is a balance here: if it's not possible to do something viably for a living, then few people if any will do it.
Then probably that's how it should work. Be sure that if something is needed people will give money, if not, they won't. This is how it works for everything. Or should we force people to buy the FooBarBaz Machine just because other wise the FooBarBaz manufacturer will not get money ?
The current situation is clearly unbalanced, but your arguments are not really convincing.
Simo.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 09:58 -0500, simo wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 09:38 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going to cost ~$100k. Nobody is going to buy a copy of that film at that price. They probably would spend $10 on a copy, but that's not the true value of the film and therefore someone spending $10 on a copy of the film shouldn't expect to have the right to do what they wanted with that film as if it were theirs.
This is simple, you make a contract, before the film is ready to be shipped, with the major theaters, so that you are sure you will get enough money to cover the costs. Once that is done you have your money back (and probably something more) anything else that comes is just a plus and should not be enforced.
It's not that simple. If you make the contract before shipping the film, you've already incurred the cost of making the film and don't know if you're going to get the money back. If you can't make the contracts, you don't get your money back.
That's actually how the industry works right now. What happens is that producers effectively underwrite those contracts, and if/when a film doesn't make enough money, they take a loss. If the film makes more money than it cost, they make a profit. Managing the risk of creating films which lose money is what makes a film company successful.
Of course, film companies do that balance over a _number_ of films: they expect a certain number of films will lose money (and they don't know which ones). They just need to be profitable _on average_. If they had to make that decision per-film, a lot fewer films would be made: if they could only ever cover their costs, they would only ever make the films they knew _for sure_ would generate the revenue. Anything which could potentially create a loss would _never_ get made.
Trying to exclude profit from an industry just totally misses the point of what profit actually is, and how it works :(
I'm not saying that anyone has a right to be able to do this kind of thing profitably, but there is a balance here: if it's not possible to do something viably for a living, then few people if any will do it.
Then probably that's how it should work. Be sure that if something is needed people will give money, if not, they won't. This is how it works for everything. Or should we force people to buy the FooBarBaz Machine just because other wise the FooBarBaz manufacturer will not get money ?
You're completely missing my point; I'm not talking about forcing anything - I'm arguing completely the opposite, letting the free market allocate money to film makers.
Telling people that they cannot release a film in a certain manner is effectively forcing people _not_ to buy from them. That makes it harder to earn a living from that work.
Cheers,
Alex.
On 11/02/2008, Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
You're completely missing my point; I'm not talking about forcing anything - I'm arguing completely the opposite, letting the free market allocate money to film makers. Telling people that they cannot release a film in a certain manner is effectively forcing people _not_ to buy from them. That makes it harder to earn a living from that work.
You appear to have confused the present artificial monopoly of copyright with some sort of natural situation. The rights you seem to be arguing as natural are in fact completely synthetic.
- d.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 16:22 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
You appear to have confused the present artificial monopoly of copyright with some sort of natural situation. The rights you seem to be arguing as natural are in fact completely synthetic.
Just to be clear; I'm not arguing in favour of copyright.
I am arguing in favour of ensuring artists have sufficient avenues of revenue that they can create their art. Donations are fine, as is patronage. To some extent, subsidy by the taxpayer is also ok.
But those, in total, are not sufficient to fund the numbers of creative professionals we currently have, nor are they adequate for determining who should and shouldn't be funded.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
I am arguing in favour of ensuring artists have sufficient avenues of revenue that they can create their art. Donations are fine, as is patronage. To some extent, subsidy by the taxpayer is also ok.
But those, in total, are not sufficient to fund the numbers of creative professionals we currently have, nor are they adequate for determining who should and shouldn't be funded.
Then perhaps our society does not value creative professionals enough to sustain their current levels. *I don't know*. But your points do not support an argument that we should attempt to preserve a profession that cannot be sustained without artificial monopoly.
What I do know is that, for the vast majority of our history, copyright was absent, yet our myriad cultures still managed to create countless artistic works in that time. Those that survive today are surely a tiny speck compared to those that were made and enjoyed, despite never having copyright to artificially restrict them.
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 15:18 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
Trying to exclude profit from an industry just totally misses the point of what profit actually is, and how it works :(
Re-read my sentence, I have in no way said that they should limit themselves to cover costs. Realize that the difference from Joe Public and theater chains is that with theaters you can actually negotiate how much you want out of a movie to let them have it in time and perform it. To my knowledge most movies do cover their cost and make a hefty profit just with the theatrical release. I think that a more lax copyright law that has no power on non-commercial use (including copying) of the work would not affect this situation at all.
Simo.
simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 15:18 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
Trying to exclude profit from an industry just totally misses the point of what profit actually is, and how it works :(
Re-read my sentence, I have in no way said that they should limit themselves to cover costs. Realize that the difference from Joe Public and theater chains is that with theaters you can actually negotiate how much you want out of a movie to let them have it in time and perform it. To my knowledge most movies do cover their cost and make a hefty profit just with the theatrical release. I think that a more lax copyright law that has no power on non-commercial use (including copying) of the work would not affect this situation at all.
But all in all we are left in lousy capitalism. Aren't we?
Yeah, I love this shiny world we're living in!
Simo.
Regards Matthias-Christian
* Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2008-02-09 15:03:51 +0000]:
Donation is no way to reward people. It subjugates them, and turns them into beggars. Art by patronage exists but is limited, but having moved into a world where artists are properly paid for work and not reliant on hand-outs, I doubt the majority of artists would go back.
I am very astonished to read that you state artists are properly paid for their work. What makes you believe that artists are currently paid properly? Do you have any sources? Because from what I heard from several artists, I concluded that the current system is only working for a handful of big stars but not for the whole other artists.
Best wishes, Matthias
On 13/02/2008, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
- Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2008-02-09 15:03:51 +0000]:
Donation is no way to reward people. It subjugates them, and turns them into beggars. Art by patronage exists but is limited, but having moved into a world where artists are properly paid for work and not reliant on hand-outs, I doubt the majority of artists would go back.
I am very astonished to read that you state artists are properly paid for their work. What makes you believe that artists are currently paid properly? Do you have any sources? Because from what I heard from several artists, I concluded that the current system is only working for a handful of big stars but not for the whole other artists.
The current system is expressly designed by and for the middlemen; the artists are milked like cattle. I urge Alex (and all here) to reread Steve Albini's description of how the system worked as of 1994:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
- d.
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 15:52 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
The current system is expressly designed by and for the middlemen; the artists are milked like cattle. I urge Alex (and all here) to reread Steve Albini's description of how the system worked as of 1994:
Sure, and you can say the same about practically any organisation which is built around the work of a few - I would never claim it's anything close to perfect (although Albini's description only briefly alludes to the numbers employed in that system, and doesn't look at the numbers where an album doesn't sell well - which I would venture is the more common scenario).
It still comes back to the basic issue with earning a living from this kind of art. There are plenty of people willing to pay money for it, but there are up-front costs which need to be covered, thus you need investment. If self-publishing and gathering income that way were so easy, bands would be doing that instead of getting record contracts (and a good proportion of them actually do; not many make a living from it though). I haven't seen [m]any examples of where that was done before the artist was sufficiently well-known to be able to do it.
Cheers,
Alex.
Am Thursday, dem 14. Feb 2008 schrieb Alex Hudson:
It still comes back to the basic issue with earning a living from this kind of art.
Most artists cannot make a living from their record cotract alone at all.
There are plenty of people willing to pay money for it, but there are up-front costs which need to be covered, thus you need investment. If self-publishing and gathering income that way were so easy, bands would be doing that instead of getting record contracts (and a good proportion of them actually do; not many make a living from it though).
Are you trying to tell us, that nobody would make music, because the costs are too high??? I beg to differ!
I haven't seen [m]any examples of where that was done before the artist was sufficiently well-known to be able to do it.
Have a look at Jamendo: http://www.jamendo.com/ Most artists there don't have a record contract. Because only few independent labels allow publishing with Creative Commons.
Paying through Jamendo is possible, but that's not as easy as it should be (Paypal).
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:10 +0100, list@akfoerster.de wrote:
Am Thursday, dem 14. Feb 2008 schrieb Alex Hudson:
It still comes back to the basic issue with earning a living from this kind of art.
Most artists cannot make a living from their record cotract alone at all.
There are plenty of people willing to pay money for it, but there are up-front costs which need to be covered, thus you need investment. If self-publishing and gathering income that way were so easy, bands would be doing that instead of getting record contracts (and a good proportion of them actually do; not many make a living from it though).
Are you trying to tell us, that nobody would make music, because the costs are too high??? I beg to differ!
I haven't seen [m]any examples of where that was done before the artist was sufficiently well-known to be able to do it.
Have a look at Jamendo: http://www.jamendo.com/ Most artists there don't have a record contract. Because only few independent labels allow publishing with Creative Commons.
Paying through Jamendo is possible, but that's not as easy as it should be (Paypal).
www.magnatune.com is another site that does something similar, although they select their artists (and thus on average quality is much higher). There you can pay with a credit card and you can decide if you want a CD burned and shipped to you, or just download the bits (you get to choose how much to pay and 50% goes to the artist, which compared to 2-7% from record labels is a big difference). Music is not released under CC, licenses (IIRC) but I've found their licensing terms to be quite reasonable.
Simo.
www.magnatune.com is another site that does something similar, although they select their artists (and thus on average quality is much higher). There you can pay with a credit card and you can decide if you want a CD burned and shipped to you, or just download the bits (you get to choose how much to pay and 50% goes to the artist, which compared to 2-7% from record labels is a big difference). Music is not released under CC, licenses (IIRC) but I've found their licensing terms to be quite reasonable.
Actually, all of Magnatunes music is free for non-commercial use and licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA. See http://www.magnatune.com/info/license (at the bottom of the page).
/Stian
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:49 +0100, Stian Rødven Eide wrote:
www.magnatune.com is another site that does something similar, although they select their artists (and thus on average quality is much higher). There you can pay with a credit card and you can decide if you want a CD burned and shipped to you, or just download the bits (you get to choose how much to pay and 50% goes to the artist, which compared to 2-7% from record labels is a big difference). Music is not released under CC, licenses (IIRC) but I've found their licensing terms to be quite reasonable.
Actually, all of Magnatunes music is free for non-commercial use and licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA. See http://www.magnatune.com/info/license (at the bottom of the page).
Even better, I didn't remember exactly what they used, I think they switched licenses at some poit, but memory is fuzzy, thanks for the correction.
Simo.
On 14/02/2008, list@akfoerster.de list@akfoerster.de wrote:
Am Thursday, dem 14. Feb 2008 schrieb Alex Hudson:
It still comes back to the basic issue with earning a living from this kind of art.
Most artists cannot make a living from their record cotract alone at all.
The world doesn't owe artists a living. It is reasonable, however, for them to at least ask not to be blatantly ripped off, as per the old model of artistic production that Alex defends.
- d.
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:10 +0100, list@akfoerster.de wrote:
Am Thursday, dem 14. Feb 2008 schrieb Alex Hudson:
It still comes back to the basic issue with earning a living from this kind of art.
Most artists cannot make a living from their record cotract alone at all.
Most artists can be full-time professional artists on a record contract; indeed, that's the point of a contract. It's effectively a business loan.
If self-publishing and gathering income that way were so easy, bands would be doing that instead of getting record contracts (and a good proportion of them actually do; not many make a living from it though).
Are you trying to tell us, that nobody would make music, because the costs are too high??? I beg to differ!
No. What I'm saying is that there's a spectrum here.
The end goal is to redistribute money, roughly from the consumer to the artist. Different systems reward different people in different ways: you can completely self-record and self-publish, but that means a. you need access to the equipment/etc. in the first place, and b. you have to promote it yourself. If you get other people to pay for/supply all that, they will then want some return on their investment.
There isn't going to be a single system which works for all artists. Not every artist wants to do everything themselves: indeed, that's just a different cost. You either pay someone to do your marketing, or you spend your time doing marketing which prevents you from doing something else to earn money.
I really don't buy into the "they don't have a right to earn a living unless they can make money on it on their own" arguments that some people have implied. It is possible to view copyright as a kind of monopoly, but in a true economic sense, it's nothing of the sort because equivalent goods and services are available from a range of different places (in the case of music, perhaps not as many as you'd want, but still not a true monopoly). The current system allows consumers to purchase art and reward the artist. I'm not arguing it's anything close to perfect, but I would view any system where substantially fewer artists were working as obviously and necessarily regressive.
One of the reasons free software works relatively well is because it's straightforward to economically reward authors. It's somewhat difficult to get paid for the software itself in a traditional manner, but there are sufficient alternative income streams which allow authors to continue to work on the software. Art is completely different, though. You can't sell consultancy on art, or installation, or after-sales support. The modes of reward are very different.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
The end goal is to redistribute money, roughly from the consumer to the artist.
That's *not* the goal of copyright.
The goal of (USA) copyright is to promote "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Redistributing money is only ever a means to this explicit end. A system that focusses on redistributing money to the detriment of progress in science and useful arts is *failing* at the stated goal of copyright.
I really don't buy into the "they don't have a right to earn a living unless they can make money on it on their own" arguments that some people have implied.
Again, I hold that everyone has the right to attempt to earn a living. If society does not value their specific activities enough to pay them a living income, though, then they fail; and that is not a violation of their rights.
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 08:20 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
The end goal is to redistribute money, roughly from the consumer to the artist.
That's *not* the goal of copyright.
The goal of (USA) copyright is to promote "the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Possibly it escaped your attention, but I'm not American, and neither is this list.
If you want a modern analysis of the balance between progress of the arts and the stimulation of producers, the UK's Gowers review is useful. In continental Europe, things are different again, since there is a much stronger adherence to moral rights, which have little to do with the economics.
Again, I hold that everyone has the right to attempt to earn a living. If society does not value their specific activities enough to pay them a living income, though, then they fail; and that is not a violation of their rights.
Sure, and I would sign up to that.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
In continental Europe, things are different again, since there is a much stronger adherence to moral rights, which have little to do with the economics.
By that account, then, it seems that in the EU also it is not the goal of copyright to redistribute money.
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 09:38 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
In continental Europe, things are different again, since there is a much stronger adherence to moral rights, which have little to do with the economics.
By that account, then, it seems that in the EU also it is not the goal of copyright to redistribute money.
Not really:
"If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work, as must producers in order to be able to finance this work. [..] Adequate legal protection of intellectual property rights is necessary in order to guarantee the availability of such a reward and provide the opportunity for satisfactory returns on this investment." - 2001/29/EC (10)
There are provisions for the protection of author's standing and reputation (loosely, "moral rights"), but most directives at a European level are aimed more at ensuring a consistent internal market and similar compensation for artists across each member state.
For example, 2001/84/EC, "Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art", was purely aimed at ensuring artists get paid the same rate of royalty no matter where their works are resold.
Cheers,
Alex.
By that account, then, it seems that in the EU also it is not the goal of copyright to redistribute money.
Not really:
"If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work, as must producers in order to be able to finance this work. [..] Adequate legal protection of intellectual property rights is necessary in order to guarantee the availability of such a reward and provide the opportunity for satisfactory returns on this investment." - 2001/29/EC (10)
you should not confuse the propaganda phrases ("appropriate reward for authors or performers") with the real intentions behind it ("returns on this investment").
so there you have the proof: the EC indeed cares for the distribution of this money. but it wants to redistritubt it to the capitalists. because:
artists can only sell their labor power. and they NEED to sell it to pay for rent, food. thus => the prices for this labor will be low.
on the other hand ROI will produce 110 euro from 100 invested and then 121 out of the 110 and so one.. the geometric progression will sooner or later surpass whatever the EC sees as "appropriate reward" for those who do the actualy work.
so the plan of redistribution from those who do the work towards those who own capital (and do not work) is already incluced in the statement above.
lg mond.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 09:38 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
In continental Europe, things are different again, since there is a much stronger adherence to moral rights, which have little to do with the economics.
By that account, then, it seems that in the EU also it is not the goal of copyright to redistribute money.
Not really: [excerpt from EC directive or law]
But from what principle does this law argue? I'm looking for the equivalent of the USA's constitutional power given to the governmennt to create copyright monopolies.
Even in the exceprt you give, it seems the argument is made from the motivation to have the artist continue their work as though that in itself were the benefit being sought.
Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
- Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2008-02-09 15:03:51 +0000]:
Donation is no way to reward people. It subjugates them, and turns them into beggars. Art by patronage exists but is limited, but having moved into a world where artists are properly paid for work and not reliant on hand-outs, I doubt the majority of artists would go back.
I am very astonished to read that you state artists are properly paid for their work. What makes you believe that artists are currently paid properly? Do you have any sources? Because from what I heard from several artists, I concluded that the current system is only working for a handful of big stars but not for the whole other artists.
Stallman also mentioned this. Maybe you cold ask him, where he got this information from.
Best wishes, Matthias
Regards Matthias-Christian
Am Friday, dem 08. Feb 2008 schrieb Matthias Kirschner:
Yavor Doganov informed me, that Richard Stallman published a new version of his article "Freedom or Copyright" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html. I await your cmments :)
What comments do you expect? Of course I fully agree.
P.S.: I fetch most of my music from http://www.jamendo.com/ now. :-)