It's here. The 'napster' of the art world. :(
ilr
Artist <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2OVw5.2700$O37.9...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> http://www.scour.com/Software/Scour_Exchange/index.phtml
>
>
I don't get it.
Would someone mind explaining what Napster is and
how this effects us?
-Ilr
Artist
Tehrasha Darkon
wrote:
Napster is a file sharing system that allows its users to search for and
swap MP3 files amoungst themselves. Makes record companies sad.
Apparently 'Artist' just discovered 'Scour' which is also a file sharing
system, however, it isnt limited to just MP3 files. ALL media files are
available through its searches. Pictures, sound, video, etc...
Artiist appears concerned that this will lead to rampant unapproved
furry-art file sharing.
From my experiences digging through Scour with its search engine...
finding furry/any content in the sea of pornography (like in the
alt.binaries.pictures.furry* newsgroups) would be more trouble than its
worth. I doubt furry artists have anything to worry about.
--Teh
--
My mailbox is NOT an advertisement medium. Tehrasha Darkon
My address is NOT for sale, lease or rent. dar...@netins.net
Send me spam, lose your account. Get it? TINLC-1372
Woolly Mittens
even catagories :P
I'm surprised "artist" doesn't know about gnutella
ilr
> Napster is a file sharing system that allows its users to search for and
> swap MP3 files amoungst themselves. Makes record companies sad.
>
> Apparently 'Artist' just discovered 'Scour' which is also a file sharing
> system, however, it isnt limited to just MP3 files. ALL media files are
> available through its searches. Pictures, sound, video, etc...
> Artiist appears concerned that this will lead to rampant unapproved
> furry-art file sharing.
>
> From my experiences digging through Scour with its search engine...
> finding furry/any content in the sea of pornography (like in the
> alt.binaries.pictures.furry* newsgroups) would be more trouble than its
> worth. I doubt furry artists have anything to worry about.
>
> --Teh
>
That's what I thought.
Thx,
-Ilr
Rick Pikul
says...
> Tehrasha Darkon <dar...@netins.net> wrote:
>
> > Napster is a file sharing system that allows its users to search for and
> > swap MP3 files amoungst themselves. Makes record companies sad.
>
> Napster got big. Free advertising, and they're trying to stomp it out.
While the free distribution of selected music may increase sales
of CDs: _It isn't your choice unless you own the copyright._
This is why most of the record companies made deals with MP3.com.
--
Phoenix
DishRoom1
>Tehrasha Darkon <dar...@netins.net> wrote:
>
>> Napster is a file sharing system that allows its users to search for and
>> swap MP3 files amoungst themselves. Makes record companies sad.
>
>Which is ironic, because the record industry saw a leap in sales when
>Napster got big. Free advertising, and they're trying to stomp it out.
>
Problem is, the "free advertising" was done without the knowledge of the
companies and the artisits involved.
>> Artiist appears concerned that this will lead to rampant unapproved
>> furry-art file sharing.
>
>Which is unlikely at best.
I feel it *is* likely. The whole pubic should've been educated over copyright
laws long ago. If we were there'd be no Napster and Gnuteraa (or whatever it is
spelled like. :xp) and the like.
J. Shughart
aka Jetstone Tigre
Cray Drygu
<2OVw5.2700$O37.9...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>:
>http://www.scour.com/Software/Scour_Exchange/index.phtml
I get a kick out of people talking about Scour like it's the Next Big
Thing. I was using them three or four years ago (and they were pretty
bad back then...if they haven't changed the way they work [Windows SMB
shares], then they're probably still pretty bad).
--
Cray Drygu
cray [at] org
silverlight <dot>
"It's all about the Pentiums, baby!"
-- Weird Al
Watts Martin
>I feel it *is* likely. The whole pubic should've been educated over
copyright
>laws long ago. If we were there'd be no Napster and Gnuteraa (or whatever it
is
>spelled like. :xp) and the like.
Most of the people using Napster, Gnutella, and similar technologies simply
don't care. There's an amazing number of rationalizations people will come
up with it, but that's not new. We've seen it before with software ("I'd
never buy it anyway," "it's outrageously overpriced"), with anime before it
become widely available in America ("well, most people can't find it, so
making these dubs is a service!"), and, yes, with photocopies of furry
artwork, which was utterly rampant in the '80s. There's a long history in
science fiction fandom, actually, of fanzine art being freely traded with no
thought to copyright--but in "old school fandom" this was pretty much
understood by all participants.
Having said that, Scour has been around for a couple of years--it predates
Napster--and it's no more useful (but no less useful) than other image-
searching services like Alta Vista.
The reality is that if your stuff is tradeable, there will be a percentage of
people who trade it. Just take realistic steps to minimize the damage.
Don't put up scans higher resolution than 75 dpi (about 750x563 on a full US
letter-sized paper). Use medium-quality JPEGs (or GIFs, whichever is
smaller). Stamp your copyright and contact info on the image in a manner
which isn't obnoxious but is clear. In other words, don't give people with
720dpi inkjet printers the ability to reproduce your art at print quality.
Sell good quality prints at reasonable prices. ($5-8 for a color photocopy,
a little more for a 720dpi inkjet printout at full color and resolution. If
you are selling your color photocopies for $15 or more, which I've seen, you
are confusing art with extortion.) And, realize that there *will* be a
percentage of cheapskates who will copy your stuff no matter what you do. Go
after them when you can--but don't slit your wrists over it.
Incidentally, I saw someone bring out the old chestnut, "Information wants to
be free." For the record, this is the complete quote:
"Information wants to be free (because of the new ease of copying and
reshaping and casual distribution), AND information wants to be expensive
(it's the prime economic event in an information age)... and technology is
constantly making the tension worse." -- Stewart Brand
--
Watts Martin <mi...@solluna.org>
http://www.ranea.org/watts/
Chuck Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Rick Pikul <rwp...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> > While the free distribution of selected music may increase sales
> > of CDs: _It isn't your choice unless you own the copyright._
>
> Never mind the fact that you can try and copyright culture but you won't
> stop it from being shared anyway. Information tends to be free, wether or
> not the creators like that. The only reason to prevent it is to never
> release it.
>
Except that you're not really talking about culture when you're
discussing copyright. Culture is a bit more encompassing, covering an entire
way of life, belief, custom, practice, etc; art, and any subset of art
(music, painting, dance, etc) is but a small part of Culture. Copyright does
not affect Culture; it is an artist's protection against theft, against other
artists or businessmen usurping his works, laying claim to them, or making
money from them at the artist's expense. Copyright affects only the specific
work, not the entire body of culture.
The claim that Information Is Free is a bit glib when you speak of other
people's work, and make no mistake that a work of Art -is- an effort of Work,
even if a personally joyous one; it isn't Information, but a personal labor
for which the creator put in a good deal of time and effort, and it is never
appreciated when such works are taken and freely appropriated without so much
as a by-your-leave... whether or not some folks think so or not.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> "Information wants to be free (because of the new ease of copying
> and reshaping and casual distribution), AND information wants to
> be expensive (it's the prime economic event in an information age)...
> and technology is constantly making the tension worse." -- Stewart Brand
Actually, Maggie led me to an interesting article where the author posited
that "It's not Information that wants to be free. Information doesn't WANT
anything. It's People who want information to be free." Mostly because they
are cheap or lazy.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Paul R. Bennett
I have a very strong agreement with you on this subject.
Years a-gone I wrote a little treatise here in AFF about the
notion that art should, somehow, be "free" or that any
intellectual work should be free.
At the time I pointed out that any creative effort is an
expenditure of energy, whether it is art or software. In any
event, it is a commitment of time and effort on someone's part.
It may also mean a monetary commitment as well.
The "creator" has a right to expect a return for his or her
efforts. If they choose to make those efforts freely available,
then good on them. If not, well, they deserve whatever they can
get.
Why should there be such a demand that "Creative Work" should be
free? We should reward the creative, frequently and highly for
their efforts. A carpenter or an auto mechanic, or a computer
tech, or a bus driver as example, has every right and expectation
of receiving remuneration for their efforts. An artist, whatever
venue or media used, is due as a minimum, the same courtesy and
respect.
Why should a secretary be paid for a days work typing yet an
author be expected to provide work "for free".
Why should a house or marine, or automotive painter be paid for
their, sometimes even creative works as in detailing, yet a
graphic artist be expected to do it for just the cheers(which do
seem to be seldom given).
Like I said, not disagreeing with you. Just seeing the same old
nonsense making the rounds. Why are there folks who insist that
an artist owes the world their products?
We want this artwork, we want these creative products, then we
should be rewarding and encouraging the creators. We should be
respecting their wishes and their talents. We should be
respecting them as people by doing just exactly that.
It seems to be forgotten that this may well be the way an artist
either earns, or supplements an income. The price of that story
or picture that someone decides to copy and give to a friend may
mean a meal for an artist, or medicine or so many of the other
necessities of life. Is the artist as a person worth so little?
Although I could also say some harsh things about "Business Savy",
"Customer relations", "Business Courtesy", and the "Artist as a
business person", but we won't go there.
Paul
Artist
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:kgl9q8...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> Watts Martin <mi...@solluna.remove-bogus.org> wrote:
>
> > "Information wants to be free (because of the new ease of copying and
> > reshaping and casual distribution), AND information wants to be
expensive
> > (it's the prime economic event in an information age)... and technology
is
> > constantly making the tension worse." -- Stewart Brand
>
> come to our concerts and record our stuff or bootleg our records. We
> won't stop you. But if you like us, you'll buy the album yourself.
It shows alot of courage to trust basic human courtesy.
But with the world the way it is today, "I would not count on it" :/
Artist
"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:000919152...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> In article <8q6jhm$5b8$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, mi...@solluna.remove-bogus.org
> (Watts Martin) writes:
> > and reshaping and casual distribution), AND information wants to
> > be expensive (it's the prime economic event in an information age)...
> > and technology is constantly making the tension worse." -- Stewart
Brand
>
posited
> that "It's not Information that wants to be free. Information doesn't
WANT
> anything. It's People who want information to be free." Mostly because
they
> are cheap or lazy.
Would you post the link?
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
mell...@yahoo.com> writes:
> "Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in
> message news:000919152...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
> > author posited that "It's not Information that wants to be
> > free. Information doesn't WANT anything. It's People who
> > want information to be free." Mostly because they are cheap or lazy.
>
> Would you post the link?
Unfortunately I don't have it, it's fallen off of her "Web Log".
Wanderer
>
>It shows alot of courage to trust basic human courtesy.
>But with the world the way it is today, "I would not count on it" :/
>
>
<wry smirk> Copyright violations have been around a *very* long time. Why,
back in the eighteenth century, a
silversmith/goldsmith/pewtersmith/engraver/denturemaker (hey, he was
multitalented) was convicted of copying another engraver's printing plate of
the Boston Massacre.
You might've heard of him ... Paul Revere.:>
It's been around furever, some things will never change.
It's been around furever, and I don't find it strange
That people copy people, and people copy life,
That present copies history, and husband copies wife,
That pet will copy owner, and friend will copy friend,
But no-one copies inspiration. Yes, that is the end.
Yours wolfishly,
The poetically-licensed,
Wanderer**wand...@ticnet.com
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
LncrAdvncd
come to our concerts and record our stuff or bootleg our records. We
won't stop you. But if you like us, you'll buy the album yourself.>>
Check out US News and World Report's "Dark Side of the Internet" article from a
few weeks ago, even the Dead are taking steps to protect their stuff from being
exploited...
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Chuck Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Artist <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It shows alot of courage to trust basic human courtesy.
> > But with the world the way it is today, "I would not count on it" :/
>
> I practice what [I|Grateful Dead] [preach|preached].
>
What the GD may preach is fine for their own material, if they really
want to go that way about it. But they do not -- nor does anyone else
-- have the right to make that decision about my work, or the work of
anyone else.
DishRoom1
That's something that has made me think. So often we would relax and listen to
music, watch a movie, or read a comic book and exjoy it, not ever at once
afterwards or such of that it is work still a work of art and the person or
people behind the work need to be reconized for it. It's more than Cold Greedy
Business As Usual here. An artist needs to keep others from profiting from his
stuff so he can claim his reward.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>At the time I pointed out that any creative effort is an
>expenditure of energy, whether it is art or software. In any
>event, it is a commitment of time and effort on someone's part.
>It may also mean a monetary commitment as well.
>
>The "creator" has a right to expect a return for his or her
>efforts.
There are alot of things that require a commitment of time and effort
however not all of them are rewarded.
[...]
>Why should there be such a demand that "Creative Work" should be
>free?
I don't think Creative work should bne free but I don't think
copyright should exist eather (at least on in the form that it
currently exists). I have a philosofical objection to the fact that
IP laws alow you to own things that don't have concrete existence and
I have a practical objection that the balence of the laws has been
shifted so strongly infavour of the publisher.
One of the basic balencing parts of the copyrigth law is the fact that
they pass into the public domain, however the period of the goverment
granted monopoly has been extended and extended untill not even my
childrens would see a public domain book from my era.
Bizzenesses threw the use of the DMCA have underminded fair usage
and even have tried to destroy the right of first sale.
> We should reward the creative, frequently and highly for
>their efforts.
Of cause thay should. But that means that they should be able to sell
there creations nothing more.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Keep Dejanews alive please sign the Petition below
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>Artist <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It shows alot of courage to trust basic human courtesy.
>> But with the world the way it is today, "I would not count on it" :/
>
>I practice what [I|Grateful Dead] [preach|preached].
I think someone have been on everything to long.
Chuck Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> I don't think Creative work should bne free but I don't think
> copyright should exist eather (at least on in the form that it
> currently exists). I have a philosofical objection to the fact that
> IP laws alow you to own things that don't have concrete existence...
I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a crock. A piece of
art -is- concrete. If it's a story, it exists on manuscript or in a
publication; if it's music, it exists (also) on manuscript or on a recording;
a painting exists on a canvas, an illustration on a board, a statue as marble
or clay, a photograph on film, etc etc.
Paul R. Bennett
Ya... Da...
And even a simple kind word of appreciation and recognition to an
artist can work wonders sometimes.
I would ask that folks bear that in mind when dealing with the
creative community.
Let's encourage them.
Paul
Paul R. Bennett
When it comes to creative efforts, I have already learned.
Head.... Wall....
Wall.... Head....
Sound effects suggestive of melon being slammed against hard
surface.
Sigh
If, at some point, an artist, in whatever venue, decides to pull
his or her works from the readily available public eye, I can not
find it in my heart to condemn them.
With respects and courtesy
Paul Bennett
(We don't have to agree about everything. We are not clones. We
have common agreements, and disagreements. Just, would that we
may conduct reasoned and gentle discussion. Would that we be
gentlefolk.)
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> That's something that has made me think. So often we would relax and listen
>to
>> music, watch a movie, or read a comic book and exjoy it, not ever at once
>> afterwards or such of that it is work still a work of art and the person or
>> people behind the work need to be reconized for it. It's more than Cold
>Greedy
>> Business As Usual here. An artist needs to keep others from profiting from
>his
>> stuff so he can claim his reward.
>>
>Ya... Da...
>And even a simple kind word of appreciation and recognition to an
>artist can work wonders sometimes.
>I would ask that folks bear that in mind when dealing with the
>creative community.
>Let's encourage them.
True. I have written to furry artist and writers over the works they done,
treasuring the joy I get from doing so. They also might respond back, sometimes
appriciating what I thought, talk about what inspired tham and such. I have
written e-mail back and forth between Shawntae Howard over the "Extinctioners"
comic book. I haven't made any fan mail to comic books as of late, but I've
been surf onto some furry wesites with artwork, and e-mailed the artist about
what I enjoy and then read back from them. They really like the feed back.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>> I don't think Creative work should bne free but I don't think
>> copyright should exist eather (at least on in the form that it
>> currently exists). I have a philosofical objection to the fact that
>> IP laws alow you to own things that don't have concrete existence...
>
> I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a crock. A piece of
>art -is- concrete.
I have no dout about that. I have no problem with owning objects that
have a concrete existence. Its this mythical "right to reproduce"[1]
that exists inderpendently of the physical existence of the artwork
that I have the problem with.
[1] BTW is it just me or does reproducion rights sound like something
a out of SF story (or china) where peoples birth rate is strictly
controlled?
DishRoom1
Chuck Meville wrote --
>>> I don't think Creative work should bne free but I don't think
>>> copyright should exist eather (at least on in the form that it
>>> currently exists). I have a philosofical objection to the fact that
>>> IP laws alow you to own things that don't have concrete existence...
>>
>I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a crock. A piece of
>>art -is- concrete.
>
>I have no dout about that. I have no problem with owning objects that
>have a concrete existence. Its this mythical "right to reproduce"[1]
>that exists inderpendently of the physical existence of the artwork
>that I have the problem with.
>
There's nothing 'mythical' about the right to reproduce.
>[1] BTW is it just me or does reproducion rights sound like something
>a out of SF story (or china) where peoples birth rate is strictly
>controlled?
>
That is the most retarded excuse to defy a time-honored set of laws. it's been
*ALREADY* pointed out that the copyrights do not shut down culture as
anarchists would shout mindlessly about. Instead they are there for artists,
studios, companies and the like to prevent others from copying thier material
and making money off of the copies. Also, being an artist myself, with my own
characters being copyrighted to myself, I'd like to add to the debate that
artists like myself can have pride and joy in what they create and would hate
it if they were misused in a style the copyright-holder disliked. (like
depicting Disney characters in porno art, for example.)
To me this frilivous thing of comparing copyright laws to forced control the
birth rate is stupid. There is nothing in common shared between the two.
(Any more pro-copyright people want to add to this.)
LncrAdvncd
inderpendently of the physical existence of the artwork that I have the problem
with. >>
The art, has a concrete existance, the reproductions have a concete existance.
There is a concrete action taken to reproduce art.
As for the right being mythical, why should it be considered any more mythical
than any other right we claim we have, are "liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" concrete? What about freedom of expression, religion etc? What about
even the right to own property... Once you start claiming that any right is
mythical, you start down a very slippery slope.
Personally considering how many times I've had my stuff spread over the net
without any links back to me. I have a pretty dim view of society's willingness
to reward the arts, and the current arguments over copyright don't help,
because of the constant denigration of the creative effort by those who argue
against the moral rights of artists.
Artist
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
message news:slrn8sum7u....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 05:23:27 -0700, Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> >
> >> copyright should exist eather (at least on in the form that it
> >> currently exists). I have a philosofical objection to the fact that
> >> IP laws alow you to own things that don't have concrete existence...
> >
> > I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a crock. A piece
of
> >art -is- concrete.
>
> that exists inderpendently of the physical existence of the artwork
> that I have the problem with.
So that begs the question, how is it differnt from say... Ivory soap?
Should anybody who wants to pass off cheap immitations be allowed to under
the Ivory name? Even if they are putting razor blades in the mix? I guess
what I am getting at is that artwork is just as concrete as any other
product. Quite frankly, people are out to get something for nothing. If the
laws were not there, they would simply take what they want. There is a
REASON that hummarabies code was set down. :)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa wrote --
>
>Chuck Meville wrote --
[...]
>>I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a crock. A piece of
>>>art -is- concrete.
>>
>
>>I have no dout about that. I have no problem with owning objects that
>>have a concrete existence. Its this mythical "right to reproduce"[1]
>>that exists inderpendently of the physical existence of the artwork
>>that I have the problem with.
>>
>
>There's nothing 'mythical' about the right to reproduce.
We have had concrete property rights since the dawn of writing
(earlest known wrighting was things like "I have 5 sheep.") and it has
been pritty much established. The goverment granted monopoly we
call copyright doesn't have such a history its an invention of goverments.
>>[1] BTW is it just me or does reproducion rights sound like something
>>a out of SF story (or china) where peoples birth rate is strictly
>>controlled?
>
>That is the most retarded excuse to defy a time-honored set of laws.
The foot note was mostly a joke.
> it's been *ALREADY* pointed out that the copyrights do not shut down
> culture
You call the comdified pap we are fed culture? On a broader scale I'm
not argueing that it shuts down culture, it just burdens it.
>[...]Instead they are there for artists,
>studios, companies and the like to prevent others from copying thier material
>and making money off of the copies.
Copyrights in theory are there for the consumers and the advancement
of usefull arts (I don't know how usefull furry art is but I'll let
that one slide).
> Also, being an artist myself, with my own characters being
> copyrighted to myself,
You can't copyright characters. You can trademark characters but you
can't copyright them. You can only copyright expressions of ideas
such as stories, statiues ect.
> i'd like to add to the debate that
>artists like myself can have pride and joy in what they create and would hate
>it if they were misused in a style the copyright-holder disliked.
Neather copyright nor trademarks can be used to prevent people from
making pardies that are distastefull to the orgginal artist.
[...]
>To me this frilivous thing of comparing copyright laws to forced control the
>birth rate is stupid. There is nothing in common shared between the
>two.
Well there both controls over reproducion. Also the moral rights of
the artist laws are build up by anology with the artworks being a
child of the creator.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
><<I have no dout about that. I have no problem with owning objects
>that have a concrete existence. Its this mythical "right to
>the artwork that I have the problem with. >>
>
>There is a concrete action taken to reproduce art.
The the art and the reproductions have concrete existence, rights
don't have concrete existence.
>As for the right being mythical, why should it be considered any more mythical
>than any other right we claim we have, are "liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness" concrete?
No there abstractions. And you can't sell liberty, and no mattor what
the ads say you can't buy happiness.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
>message news:slrn8sum7u....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
[...]
>> Its this mythical "right to reproduce"[1]
>> that exists inderpendently of the physical existence of the artwork
>> that I have the problem with.
>
>So that begs the question, how is it differnt from say... Ivory
>soap? Should anybody who wants to pass off cheap immitations be
>allowed to under the Ivory name?
Thats trademarks a whole diffrent barrle of monkeys to copyrights.
LncrAdvncd
(earlest known wrighting was things like "I have 5 sheep.") and it has
been pritty much established. The goverment granted monopoly we
call copyright doesn't have such a history its an invention of goverments. >>
What society regards as rights are a constantly evolving set of concepts, to
argue the validiy of any particular right by how long it has been in existance
is a dubious concept at best, esp when you consider that even those rights
which have been around the longest are constantly evolving in their meaning..
The concept of copyright is historically recent, simply because untill fairly
recently historicaly the reproduction of work simply wasn't a possibility.
Leonardo did not have to worry about bootleg copies of the Mona Lisa, simply
because one couldn't be made.
While initally copyrights effectively were made to protect publishers the
rights are still invested in the artists. Publishers have remained the primary
benificary of copyright law simply becaue of the practical problems of
distribution, printing etc, have untill now been only solvable by the economy
of scale.
What the we generally term "Copyright" is actually a far more basic principle,
the right to ask for compensation for efforts done on the behalf of others.
Control of the reproduction of their work currently the only practical leverage
that artists have against their exploitation.
Now however we are walking on a very difficult edge. The same technology that
can free artists from the economic dominace of the publishers also opens the
door to mass exploitation of the artists by the public at large, whose anger at
the controls placed by the mass media is being wrongfully directed at a mass
denigration of the creative effort itself.
LncrAdvncd
concrete existence. >>
Tell you what, you show me your right to own property, and I'll show you my
rights as an artist...
"I have a big gun, I'll take your property-thank you"
If as you say rights dont have a concrete existance then none of them exist,
not even the right "concrete" property. Realistically only the fact that
society as a whole weilds bigger guns than any individual allows us any rights
at all.
What is being discussed is who is allowed by the society to take the actions to
make the concrete copies without threat of reprecussion. And society has
decided to give artist leverage to obtain compensation by allowing them control
over who makes copies of their work.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
><< We have had concrete property rights since the dawn of writing
>(earlest known wrighting was things like "I have 5 sheep.") and it has
>been pritty much established. The goverment granted monopoly we
>call copyright doesn't have such a history its an invention of goverments. >>
[...]
>The concept of copyright is historically recent, simply because untill fairly
>recently historicaly the reproduction of work simply wasn't a possibility.
>Leonardo did not have to worry about bootleg copies of the Mona Lisa, simply
>because one couldn't be made.
However artists have always been makeing reporductions. Simply
walking up to a painting ect and painting there own exact copy of them.
[...]
>What the we generally term "Copyright" is actually a far more basic principle,
>the right to ask for compensation for efforts done on the behalf of
>others.
I'm sorry but I can't quite parse this sentence could you rewrite it?
>Control of the reproduction of their work currently the only
>practical leverage that artists have against their exploitation.
I don't beleave that copyright in the digital world is practical (or
moral) and I beleave that there should be some other model perhaps
street proformer based.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
><< The the art and the reproductions have concrete existence, rights
>don't have concrete existence. >>
[...]
>If as you say rights dont have a concrete existance then none of them
>exist,
No there is such a thing as abstract existence, ideas, beauty, love,
hate, platonic ideals, consepts and the like all exist but are not
concrete. Its somewhat like the diffrence between RL and VR. I don't
think that such things should be ownable.
LncrAdvncd
walking up to a painting ect and painting there own exact copy of them. >>
Gee.. Forgery anyone? Not to mention that the method you describe is a lot
more labor intesive than modern reproduction methods. There's a reason they're
called those big art sales are called "Starving Artist Sales"
<< I'm sorry but I can't quite parse this sentence could you rewrite it? >>
Simple, I do somthing for you, you do something for me... even if it's as
simple as drawing a pretty picture for you to look at...
<< I don't beleave that copyright in the digital world is practical (or moral)
and I beleave that there should be some other model perhaps street proformer
based. >>
Well here we have a fundamental disagreement, I'm not sure the practicality of
applying any given law has anything to do with it's basic morality. What's
more the distribution networks arn't to the point where it's totally
impractical to trace a infringer.
The difficulty in enforcement lies in the legal costs of bringing an
infringment suit, whichis why the media industries are aiming at the
bottlenecks in the system. A small claims type court modeled on the same type
of open network would make copyright much more enforceable.
What's more a totally open system has an inherent signal to noise problem,
where while any given work may be acessable, it will become increasingly
difficult to find...
Copyright is due for a change, and does have some flaws,but right now it's the
system that we have. It's not for -you- to decide how an artist should seek
compensation for their work.
The street performer models has it's flaws as well, mainly in that it depends
on the willingness of society to compensate artists, there is a net loss as
well since time that the artist would spend creating new work is lost to the
increased need for self promotion, and it also leaves open the door for
exploitation of artists. Untill some other system comes along that is as
effective in allowing artists to gain compensation, and avoid exploitation,
I'll stick with copyright,
I do feel that artist have a fundamental moral right to see that their work is
not used in a manner that they disaprove of without being able to respond
equally, to claim credit for their work, and to avoid exploitaion by others who
enrich themselves but arn't compensating the artists for their efforts.
Wanderer
>On 26 Sep 2000 16:28:36 GMT, LncrAdvncd <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>The concept of copyright is historically recent, simply because untill
fairly
>>recently historicaly the reproduction of work simply wasn't a possibility.
>>Leonardo did not have to worry about bootleg copies of the Mona Lisa,
simply
>>because one couldn't be made.
>
>walking up to a painting ect and painting there own exact copy of them.
Not really practical back then. Certainly, similar pictures have been
painted, some of which bear a striking resemblance to La Gioconda. But an
exact replica was impractical until the advent of modern photographic
technologies.
Bear in mind, O platypus, that a painting takes a *long* time to execute.
Ancient artists such as Leonardo and Michelangelo were paid by the job ...
not by the hour ... and yet it could take them a *very* long time to finish
even a relatively simple portrait. Plus, artists of olde worked on
commission ... all works were executed for a paying client who would keep
them on their own private demesnes. Taking a few months to copy a painting
simply wasn't prectical.
>
>[...]
>
>>What the we generally term "Copyright" is actually a far more basic
principle,
>>the right to ask for compensation for efforts done on the behalf of
>>others.
>
>I'm sorry but I can't quite parse this sentence could you rewrite it?
Copy right = right to copy. This is a form of ownership in which permission
to duplicate, in whole or in major portion, the work of another rests with
the originator of the work.
Say, fur example, I start a cartoon series called "Monster Dorm", which
features a college-age-equivalent version of Dracula, the Wolfman, and the
Frankenstein Monster, having goofy adventures in a college dorm.
Let us assume that there is already a comic book called "College Monsters"
(which there was, fur a while) which features very similar characters in
very similar situations ... same monsters, same setup, also a comedy.
Copy rights rest with the owners of the comic book. Since they got to the
idea first, they are allowed to prevent me from making money off of the
ideas they've already spent time and money to develop.
However, prior use must be demonstrated. J. Michael Straczynski originally
pitched Babylon 5 to UPN. They accepted the script, but turned it down.
Then they made ST: DS9.
Could Straczynski have sued for breach of copyright? Yes. He had the
script, as well as proof that he had shown it to Roddenberry's people.
However, since several differences *were* included (replacing Shadows with
Jem-Hadar and Founders, Vorlons with the Prophets, and eliminating the
telepath entirely), it would have rested on shaky ground. There was clearly
inspiration ... and a sympathetic judge may have ruled there was too much
similarity ... but not direct imitation.
Thus, if you create a character that makes it big, you are entitled to sue
me if I use that character without your permission, and/or in ways you do
not approve. It's that simple: "I made it, so you can't use it without my
permission."
After all, remember the origin of the term, "steal my thunder" ...
>
>>Control of the reproduction of their work currently the only
>>practical leverage that artists have against their exploitation.
>
>I don't beleave that copyright in the digital world is practical (or
>moral) and I beleave that there should be some other model perhaps
>street proformer based.
<exasperated sigh> And how would that work? Unless I see you create
something, I can just take it? Unless your art-creation process is
personally witnessed, your work is free-domain?
Well, now, I suppose that would be nice. Let's see, I'll just grab 14
Wookiee pics, slap them together into a calendar, and sell it on eBay.
After all, I didn't witness the creation of the art ... And that means I
get to keep all the proceeds and put my name on the art credit. Gee, that's
really swell protection for digital artists there, David ...
O Platytudinal one, this is why copyright exists. Because, ever since the
printing press, there have been duplications. If we do not protect the copy
rights in all their forms, we rob artists and writers of a sizable chunk of
change (in the form of royalties).
Yours wolfishly,
The unamused,
Wanderer
>><<I have no dout about that. I have no problem with owning objects
>>reproduce" that exists inderpendently of the physical existence of
>>the artwork that I have the problem with. >>
>>
existance.
>>There is a concrete action taken to reproduce art.
>
>don't have concrete existence.
Oh? One prsumes, therefore, that laws, having no concrete existence save as
words on paper, would be equally mythical. Also, the Bill of Rights.
All right, then. That means that anyone who can make a concrete action that
overrules yours wins.
Gee, and doesn't everyone just miss the good old days of, "Might Makes
Right"? Life was so much simpler when any self-proclaimed lord with a
decent force of men could take over small towns and set up his own form of
mandatory taxation ...
>
>>As for the right being mythical, why should it be considered any more
mythical
>>than any other right we claim we have, are "liberty and the pursuit of
>>happiness" concrete?
>
>No there abstractions. And you can't sell liberty, and no mattor what
>the ads say you can't buy happiness.
>
Yet I could, with the right tools, remove your liberty, could I not? If I
restrain you, I have removed your liberty. If I release you, I have
returned your liberty to you. How then is liberty not concrete, when it may
be removed and returned?
Yours waiting for that answer with bated breath,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
>>If as you say rights dont have a concrete existance then none of them
>>exist,
>
>No there is such a thing as abstract existence, ideas, beauty, love,
>hate, platonic ideals, consepts and the like all exist but are not
>concrete. Its somewhat like the diffrence between RL and VR. I don't
>think that such things should be ownable.
>
Ah-ah-ah ... you furget. It is not the idea, but its expression, which is
copyrighted. The script, program, movie, video, book or play, once it has
assumed concrete existence, becomes copyright material.
As an example, the original series M*A*S*H* could never show Trapper
operating on Hawkeye, because so many scripts, many of them unusable, had
been sent in with just that idea. Because it could be shown that they had
received the materail, had access to it, and probable cause could be shown
that they had made use of the material, they could be sued by everyone that
had ever sent in a Trapper-operates-on-Hawkeye script.
Again, it is not the *idea*, Not The Idea, that is being Copyrighted, as it
is not the idea that is being copied. It is the material manifestation of
that idea.
To draw a closer example to furfans:
If I made a magazine called Furkin, which featured furry-type material, I
could be sued for violation of copyright by FurKindred. The title and
content are obviously similar, and the magazine that can show prior use is
readily available. Therefore, while I may create a fur magazine, I cannot
name it such things as Furkin, Furrlong, FurNature, etc., as it may
reasonably create confusion between my product and a more established one.
This is why nobody else can make a "7th Guest III" ...
Yours wolfishly,
The copyright-learning,
Chuck Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>
> You call the comdified pap we are fed culture?
Yes. It's quality is irrelevant to its existence; good, bad or indifferent,
it remains a culture.
> On a broader scale I'm
> not argueing that it shuts down culture, it just burdens it.
>
Burdens it!? By allowing the artist a fair chance of retaining ownership of
his work, and by saving him from being unfairly ripped off by others!? Oh,
please. Now pull the other one.
>
>
>
> Neather copyright nor trademarks can be used to prevent people from
> making pardies that are distastefull to the orgginal artist.
>
That's true; allowable due to the Fair Use clause. However, there -are-
reasonable limits; I think one was set in a court case where a specific parody
was legal -once-, maybe twice, but when used repeatedly then it becomes an
infrigement.
Chuck Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2000 21:28:39 GMT, LncrAdvncd <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
> ><<I have no dout about that. I have no problem with owning objects
> >that have a concrete existence. Its this mythical "right to
> >reproduce" that exists inderpendently of the physical existence of
> >the artwork that I have the problem with. >>
> >
> >The art, has a concrete existance, the reproductions have a concete existance.
> >There is a concrete action taken to reproduce art.
>
> The the art and the reproductions have concrete existence, rights
> don't have concrete existence.
>
> >As for the right being mythical, why should it be considered any more mythical
> >than any other right we claim we have, are "liberty and the pursuit of
> >happiness" concrete?
>
> No there abstractions. And you can't sell liberty, and no mattor what
> the ads say you can't buy happiness.
>
But they are abstractions with concrete terms and definitions, set in stone
(figuatively speaking) in legal charters and laws. Here in the US, such terms are
set out and defined by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution,
and have been argued and reaffirmed in Supereme Court cases over the past couple
of centuries. Other nations have their own Charters, Constitutions, or Legal
commitments as well. As these are held to be legal, substantial and viable, then
it is no less so with Copyrights and Trademarks.
Barry Gold
Wanderer <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote
[quote snipped]
>Ah-ah-ah ... you furget. It is not the idea, but its expression, which is
>copyrighted. The script, program, movie, video, book or play, once it has
>assumed concrete existence, becomes copyright material.
>To draw a closer example to furfans:
>
>If I made a magazine called Furkin, which featured furry-type material, I
>could be sued for violation of copyright by FurKindred. The title and
>content are obviously similar, and the magazine that can show prior use is
>readily available.
That's not copyright. That's trademark. Trademark covers a wider
variety of things and has no time limit, but you have to keep using it
or it lapses.
But it's still a form of intellectual property that protects the
creator of something from having his/her creation stolen.
--
Finger bg...@nyx10.nyx.net for public key