The issue I am concerned with is basically one of user’s rights vs. creator’s rights and the mechanism to enforce those rights with regards to information flows. The constitution allowed for copyright law but did not get specific beyond its goal to promote knowledge and to temporarily reward inventors and authors with remuneration for their efforts in seeking to promote the spread of knowledge.
Three people answered out of an unknown number of potential readers. All were from Yahoo groups. The first one was short and succinct, a bit paranoid and definitely against government involvement in the media. He seems to believe that the New York Times and Washington Post are mouthpieces for the government.
The second person has a bit more involved perspective. He seems to be critical of the industry that has built up around providing a means to collect royalties from copyright. He sees these as seeking to “sponge off” of creators. He believes that capitalism is the correct mechanism for remunerating creators, and does not trust experts, party bosses, democratic or socialist control. He also interestingly doesn’t trust the marketplace, leaving a contradictory position regarding how the capitalist approach is to work.
Our third person is a believer in freedom and thinks that the invasion of privacy will be more of an issue than dissemination of information. He is not opposed to charging for information but that the source should either charge a fee or advertise but not both. I think that would mean cable TV should not have channels that have commercials once you have paid your monthly fee. He believes in royalties for posting full copies of creative works and yet does not believe in capitalism as the economic model.
Since I originally posted this more people have answered. I will let them speak for themselves. See June 24th posting for original survey.
Survey and answers from internet
1) Re: Survey: Freedom of Information, Vs. Security, Copyrights and Roy
Posted by: “LUV” email@example.com homedinger
Date: Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:23 am ((PDT))
I don’t want my tax dollars going to the NY Times or Washington Post so that they can spread National Security State lies and Forces of Greed lies to undermine everything I believe in
2) Re: [R-G] Survey of Media Control or Freedom Saturday, June 25, 2011 7:00 AM
From: “Edward Craig” Add sender to Contacts To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Perhaps this should be on a site online?
> A) Yes. I expect the NY Times to lose readers and Rhapsody to do OK, Different media and audiences.
> B) No. Bloggers are unlikely to get subscribers to pay. Musicians are therefore unlikely to profit thereby. I can’t see the music industry recovery from alienating both their customer and the content providers they’re attempting to sponge off of.
> C) Yes. Copyright owners are rightly perceived as unnecessary intermediaries between content creators and customers especially when content creators sign over their rights in order to distribute what ought to be their content.
> D) Yes, provided authors are credited and profit thereby.
> E) No. Socialist artists lose too much revenue and control. Frequently they are not credited or fairly compensated.
> F) No. Party leaders have a bad habit of censoring art because they do not understand artists nor appreciate artistic audiences. Party leaders miss their calls because of their lack of appreciation of the aesthetics of media and inability to evaluate art.
> G) No. The marketplace has no appreciation of art nor is any market concerned about long-term value.
> H) No. I can see no valid way of determining democratic aesthetics.
> I) Yes. While technology Improves artists must take advantage of those improvements. Bad art shows its quality as it gets distributed and most especially when it is preserved by being collected and curated.
The First Amendment was adopted to encourage the dissemination of knowledge and art. There is no valid controlling authority, nor ought there be.
Edward P. Craig
“Think this through with me. Let me know your mind” Hunter/Garcia
3) Re: [yippies] Survey: Freedom of Information, Vs. Security, Copyrights and Royalties Saturday, June 25, 2011 3:32 AM
From: “Dean Tuckerman” View contact details
A) Comment: not any site like the times which charges money and has advertising. any site which charges money should not have advertising, and any site which has advertising should be free. I know nothing about rhapsody.
B) Comment: Bloggers should either charge money or have advertising. No to both. They should pay a limited royalty to put up full creative works.
C) Comment: Yes if the companies or people being ignored are getting their survival some other way. If no to there should be a limited amount of money paid for creative work.
D) Comment: no
E) Comment: the community should support arts and literature, with no censorship except for material which demeans others.
F) Comment: see above.
G) Comment: I don’t understand what you mean by “acceptable”, or which definition of “the marketplace” you are using.
H) Comment: no.
I) Comment: how could it not. You can’† produce more than you can produce, be it cars or information.
General comment: i support free speech and free press. i think every society should have some kind of bill of rights for speech and press. I believe that with the existence of new technologies the major fight around civil liberties will turn from what people can say or publish, to a protection of their privacy both from governmental, private corporations, NGO’s and people in general.
4) See comments section of Survey posting.
5)Posted by: “dale” email@example.com nublueshoe2
Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:36 am (PDT)
— In Hippy@yahoogroups. com, “garyrumor2″ wrote:
> Freedom of Information Vs. Copyright and Royalties
> June 24th, 2011
> A) Comment:Sure, if they choose to. But if they do, they should have to pay royalties to the original creator of any information or entertainment they publish.
> B) Comment: Same response as to (A).
> C) Comment: Not having been involved with the anarchist movement, my comments are based on this definition I found; “a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.”
If this world were perfect, it would be anarchical. My life
experiences dictate to me that it ain’t never gonna happen.
Even so, I have this belief that to strive to attain the
seemingly impossible (perfection) is the most important duty
we have as individuals. So–people should be allowed to use and
distribute information or entertainment freely, if they receive
no personal benefit from it.
> D) Comment: No. My belief is that unadulterated capitalism
will devour democracy. It must always be tempered with other
> E) Comment: To an extent, yes. Even though I self identify as
a socialist, it also needs regulation through democratic
feedback. In essence, what I’m saying is the arts are so vital
to a well functioning, balanced society that they should be
supported by the state, if they require support. Mainstream,
popular forms are able to stand on their own appeals, and
should be allowed to. But if alternative forms are not
subsidized to sufficiently allow anyone to have the opportunity
to be exposed to different views, a door has been opened for the
most organized, best networked, and most politically connected
capitalists to use the arts as a propaganda tool. What awaits on
the other side of that door is not in society’s best interests.
Of that I am sure.>
> F) Comment: Hell no.>
> G) Comment: No, individuals should be be able to determine
what is acceptable for themselves.>
> H) Comment: Same as (G).>
> I) Comment: Yes, but……. limits are something we should
always be looking to surpass.
6) Posted by: “MJSaf” firstname.lastname@example.org mj_saf
Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:53 am (PDT)
I think it can all boil down to fair use
____________ _________ _________ ______
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fair_use
17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________
It’s important one gives credit where credit is due. Stealing someone’s photograph,
image or exact words without giving a credit, a reference or a link is blatant thievery,
and unethical. Otherwise, I think its all fair game and access to information should remain free. If one puts something out there and it is a downloadable image one has already given access. I think as an artist, a writer or a musician, any ethical use of our work by another party on their site, newspaper, etc… only serves to help promote the proliferation of that person’s work. I certainly would not object to a painting or photograph or music of mine being used with my knowledge and with an appropriate link to my site
Anyone who tries to steal will be exposed over time when they fail to be able to
produce the original. Besides who could find any real satisfaction in knowing that
the work they claim is not actually their own? Therefore, I don’t worry too much about
copy artists concerning my own work.
It is nice to share ideas, and inspire each other. That is how the creative process grows and we evolve in consciousness. If we isolate everything and get to selfish about what we produce it’s hard to evolve. Besides it’s hard to come up with anything truly original these days. There is a point where we learn thru imitation, before we can arrive at a point of innovation. We can always trace an influence, whether intentional or not.
If there’s any money to be made it’s going to be in selling the actual physical painting,
a full sized high quality print of a photo, or actual performance of the music. I’m lucky
to just get people to take time out of their busy, busy, busy lives to just stop, look and listen, much less pay me for that opportunity. I don’t think there’s much money in CD sales these days, much less downloads, unless one of course is a mainstream artist, or puts in the work necessary for self-promotion, or even desires that sort of attention.
The internet is here to stay, but I think over time we will realize it’s limitations,
become hindered by it’s distraction, and could realize that the potential of our
own ‘minds’ exceeds that of any kind of electronic device. I can see myself already
getting bored and overloaded with it all. Maybe it’s time to return to simpler times,
unplug more, get back to the information contained in the air we breathe, thru just
being alive and aware and connected to 5D reality. Sometimes I think people are closing in to much on these 2D lit computer screens that just seem to be getting smaller and smaller.
We talk of having 100’s of friends and all sorts of connections, but in reality we are lucky if a dozen of those would actually be there if we called on them.
We need to look out more across a distance to accurately process information
where it can be actualized not just known. I worry people may be developing a sort
of ‘tunnel vision’. It can’t be good for the eyes.
7) Posted by: “email@example.com” firstname.lastname@example.org setnaktschosen Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:24 pm (PDT)
My replies are below ###
From: Gary garyrumor2@yahoo. com
To: Anti_Bush_Database@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:12 PM
Subject: [Anti_Bush_Database ] Survey: Freedom of Information, Vs. Security, Copyrights and Royalties
A) Comment: ###Yes and No. Charge a fee or show ads, like with Pandora
B) Comment: ###Yes on adds only with blogs. Royalties on Fair Use of articles, NEVER! Downloading songs or videos, a fee. But not for Fair Use or simply viewing/listening online (like You-tube).
C) Comment: ###Yes generally unless something is actually new. That’s rare in reality.
D) Comment: ###No, only with entertainment, not the arts.
E) Comment: ###Yes, the arts are for the evolved mind and will seldom be popular with the masses. Let them pay for movies, popular music. But we still need culture, the state should support that.
F) Comment: ###No, that’s censorship.
G) Comment: ###Yes, the will of the people.
H) Comment: ###Yes, like a said above.
I) Comment: ###Tec is just a medium, not a standard or what is allowable.
8)Elephant Ass, Chiquita Says:
June 25th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
A) No, because I dont have any.
B) Yes, if they want to go for it.
E)I dont know.
H)Yes and No. If you have time to do that, go for it.
I)No, because it doesnt.
9) Skye Says:
July 4th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Hey Ma’an! is the survey over? ’cause I wouldn’t mind throughing in afew cents, if you’ll fairly and unbiasingly include ‘em.
A) Should information from professional sites like NY Times and music sites like Rhapsody charge money?
Absolutely not! music’s free! Where have all the good times gone?! tell the truth I ain’t feelin’ the love when I have to pay fer it.
B) Should Bloggers charge money or allow advertising and pay royalties to reprint articles, songs and videos?
No. see comment above; info like sex AND music should ALWAYS be free dude, not unless your wish is to become a Fold and only interact with the real people on a four-second basis. With all of this mphasis on money man, sounds like this might be your bag? When was the last time you went to the “malt shop?” (Personally, am still smokin’ the homegrown — fuck the medical shiy, another semi-corporate scam.) Not to seem to judgmental, but seems like you must be some agin’ ‘cat’ who’s frame of reference is even more dated than mine. So why all this hidden agenda stuff? you some kind of conservative that’s still pissed because there are still a few social reforms around that survived the sixties? How you feel’n ’bout free music, free sex, and free drugs?! That’s a workable model I could abide by, and still do as much as I can, because its been corrupted by war-mongering conservatives that grew up in the fifties! (By the way, I did not see any Hippie comments, anyhow — where are they ?they ain’t on this blog.
C) Should copyright laws be ignored as anarchists say and distribute copy and images freely?
Yes, I am with the anarchists on this one, I do not believe that people function in a social vacum, the group has a long history of decidin’ what’s right for the individual when the power of the group reigns supreme over gubberment; this goes for the free distribution of porn — see my comment above concerning free sex — porn today is just another semi-to full blown corporate scamola. Though this doesn’t keep me from occasionally looking… how ’bout you. Yer ol’ lady cool with that, too? or is she apparently as tight-assed as you. (By the way, who is this elephant-ass chick? I liked her answers, anyone with a name like “CHkita” has got to be pretty cool.)
D) Generally should the capitalist model be retained with regards to the arts and literature?
Not on yer life pal, money and property have long been the root evil. Its whats brings us down. If technology doesn’t save us soon, the Fourth Mill will, probably will anyway, unless we can get back a bit more to nature and spend more time doin’ what we want, like smokin’ dope and… whatever. The question bums me out.
E) Would a socialist model work better with the arts and literature supported by the state or community?
Whatcha mean by state, is that the community, if so, cool, so long as the drugs, sex (porn), art, music, and money are free. Know what I mean?
F) Should experts or party leaders determine what is acceptable for publication, or release?
Boy, this survey is takin’ way too long. You shoulda thought about cuttin’ back on these serious questions. Did your professor think this was a “good survey,” or is this something ya came up with on yer own. Whew! Like I said before, see now I am repeating myself — you coulda got the point by now — the group decides man! If they dig your shit, then it should be distributed, for free, ’cause there’s no need for money, everyone pitches in what they can, and as they like/need to. Worked great in the sixties. Don’t need no expert to tell ya that, right? Oh, I forgot, this must not have been your trip. You just finally comin’ to Jesus, dude, and figurin’ this all out?
G) Should the marketplace determine what is acceptable for publication or release?
see above, I’m loosin’ strength in da hands…you got the gist of it what I tryin’ to say, or am I bein’ misunderstood?
H) Should some form of democratic decision making determine what is acceptable for publication or release?
ya, see above.
I) Should technology and its limits set the standard for what people can produce, publish, or release?
10) From email@example.com
June 24th, 2011
A) Comment: No, but my answer might vary according to what the traffic will bear. I might pay for the Times, but not for the NY Post. Then again, the Times has started charging, but they give enough free access to have made it unneessary for me to pay for additional access privileges.
B) Comment: It’s up to them.
C) Comment: Yes. “Intellectual property” is an oxymoron. Ideas have value only when shared. Impeding the free flow of information is not freedom.
D) Comment: No
E) Comment: No
F) Comment: Of course not
G) Comment: No.
H) Comment: No. “Democratic” processes? Why should there be any limits on what constitutes “acceptable” discourse?
I) Comment: Yes. The only limits on what’s possible should be what’s possible. Each of us has a right to determine for ourselves what’s acceptable, and to act accordingly.,
I don’t have time right now to explain my previous answer, except to say that I believe each individual is responsible for his/her own ethics, which in turn (I believe, as a matter of my own ethics) are acceptable (to me) to the extent that they manifest empathy and compassionate awareness. Concentrations of power and mandatory participation in collective decision-making systems (whether based on politics or ownership) only interfere with this.
11) See Comments section of original Survey post for further comments.