Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:01:55 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, "Victor R. Cardona" <vcardona@home.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman stalls again Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010311235053.00e26140@localhost> In-Reply-To: <15020.28993.192354.986367@guru.mired.org> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010311230800.00e19bd0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311193801.0441d3c0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306122244.04477f00@localhost> <20010305200017.D80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305123951.04604b20@localhost> <20010305205030.G80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305125259.00cfdae0@localhost> <20010305142108.A17269@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306011342.045fb360@localhost> <20010306081025.A22143@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306092612.00b79f00@localhost> <20010306174618.N32515@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311230800.00e19bd0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:48 PM 3/11/2001, Mike Meyer wrote: >If you believe that, then you've already made up your mind, and >discussing the issue is pointless. Creators publishing is the >baby. If you try to construe what I said that way you'll miss the point I was trying to make. The notion of conferring rights on creators of content is vitally important, since without it there's no incentive for them to publish other than vanity. >Right. Copyright *allows* the author to be compensated. It isn't the >compensation. Nor does it allow the author to demand compensation for >mere use. Not so. For all uses except for "fair use," it does. >I use all the books I check out from the library, but >neither the author nor the publisher gets more compensation for my use >- though publishers are trying to change that. In Europe, authors do receive compensation from libraries for the use of their work. They even receive a share of the revenues from the copying machine. Since I've written more than 1,000 published articles, I get a small but not insignificant amount of money each year from that pool of money. The Copyright Clearance Center sends me a check each fall. >Any mechanism that allows the author to be compensated if they publish >will serve the same purpose. If you want, read "make available for the >public to use" for "publish"; it amounts to the same thing. If the >public can't get to the work, there's no way they can do something >that copyright allows the author to demand compensation for. You don't have to release your work to the general public. You can license it privately to a small number of individuals if you'd like. >> Copyright applies to far more than just publishing. For example, it >> also applies to public performance for profit, etc. > >This is a bit vague. A public performance itself isn't >copyrightable. Sure it is. And the author of the work that's performed is entitled to compensation too. >> I think that unbridled theft of copyrighted material is shameful too. > >So do I. It's clearly illegal and immoral. However, it is *not* >causing a major economic dislocation, It is, actually. It's impacting the sales of albums and especially those of "singles." >wherease the publishers mucking >with fair use and related rights is threatening an entire profession. Which one? >> As I said near the beginning of this thread, we need to broker a new >> peace -- not instigate or escalate a war. > >I agree. In particular, I think that the public would be better served >by a peace that used some other mechanism to allow artists to be >compensated for publishing. What would you propose? Something like ASCAP? From whom would it collect funds? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20010311235053.00e26140>