*I completely agree* with Mr. Crossland's point of view (and i think we can
discuss this subject for years).
Rafael Garcia Motta
Buenos Aires, Argentina
2009/6/26 Gavin Melles <[log in to unmask]>
> It's actually very simple in Australia we're going to get hammered as
> academics if we're found in possession of and worse distributing copyright
> protected material. Simple really
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlotte Magnusson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Magnusson, Charlotte <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: 26/06/2009 7:13:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Copyrights and the net
>
> One aspect of publishing (I am mostly familiar with the music industry) to
> which one would have to find some alternative is the fact that music
> companies actually act as banks who lend artists money (so called advance)
> to allow them to spend time on composing. This is paid back as a share of
> the future profits - and if the product fails the artist does not have to
> pay back at all. Few ordinary banks do this.....
>
> Currently the IT providers are making big money (as well as those keeping
> services like pirate bay) on the file share - and I personally think it is
> fair some of the money made thanks to the artists go back to the artists.
> One could consider other payment models than the present.....which would
> also work for those of us not famous - a cathegory most researchers fall in
> I guess;-) - but it would be interesting to see some more suggestions on
> good ways to do this:-)
>
> /Charlotte
>
>
> Charlotte Magnusson
> Associate Professor
> Certec, Division of Rehabilitation Engineering Research
> Department of Design Sciences Lund University
> Lund
> Sweden
> tel +46 46 222 4097
> fax +46 46 222 4431
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dave
> Crossland
> Sent: den 26 juni 2009 10:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Copyrights and the net
>
> 2009/6/26 Lars Albinsson <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> > There are mainly two sides in Sweden; roughly summed up as:
> > * Mainly record companies and some artists claim that the creative
> industry
> > is dying because of internet piracy
> > * Other artists, many “intellectuals” and IT industry people claim the
> > internet offers huge potential for creative businesses and people
>
> As I see it, there are three sides to the "copyfight": The public, the
> authors/artists, and the publishers.
>
> Computer networks are built to share data, and the public Internet is
> the ultimate publishing system. Trying to prevent the public sharing
> data over the Internet is impossible, unless you create an intrusive
> police state.
>
> Copyright conceptually starts with everything published being in the
> public domain. The public then grant authors a limited time monopoly
> over some aspects of published works in order to encourage
> publication. Authors do not have a natural right to control their
> work, this control is granted to them by the public so that the public
> may benefit. Note that the phrase "intellectual property" is designed
> to confuse this, suggesting that authors have natural rights akin to
> physical property rights, and lumping together laws which have almost
> nothing in common (patents, copyrights, trademarks, database rights,
> attribution rights, etc). That phrase must be avoided to have a
> meaningful discussion of the issues it is associated with.
>
> The public used to trade away its natural right to copy published
> works to encourage the publication of more works, when it didn't have
> widespread copying machines. Now that computer networks are here, the
> copyright bargain makes less sense for most of the public, and it
> seems they would rather have file sharing - even if this means that
> there are less works being published, which can not be assumed,
> although it is asserted by publishers.
>
> Generally the political process of western democracies is dominated by
> corporate interests, and in this area, by publishing corporations.
> Therefore while the actions of the public support p2p file sharing,
> their governments have worked to support publishing companies. The
> Pirate Party is the end result of this; if the public are
> disenfranchised by corporate lobbyists enough about some issue, they
> will start political organisation to oppose the lobbyists.
>
> So the question is, can authors/artists continue to make a living
> while allowing the public to share complete copies of their works, non
> commercially, on P2P networks? Or will the public taking back its
> right to share published works mean that great authors stop publishing
> new works and do something else?
>
> In 2009 there is plenty of evidence that artists who are independent
> of publishers can make plenty of money when they respect their fan's
> desire to file share; and indeed, there are examples of authors who
> assert they now make MORE money when the full texts of their novels
> are posted online.
>
> This leaves little room for publishing companies, since artists are
> interfacing directly with the market over the net, and since the most
> famous authors and artists are contractually tied to publishers, as
> the publishers' ship sinks, those artists who are going down with them
> have quite loud voices. However, famous artists are now actively
> leaving their publishers (Madonna, Radiohead, etc) and implementing
> the kind of mature and sophisticated "direct marketing" to monetise
> their works that newer artists who weren't able to get publishing
> contracts have been perfecting.
>
> Here in academia, the question is, can academics make a living while
> allowing the public to share complete copies of their articles, non
> commercially, on the web?
>
> I suggest that they can.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
--
Rafael Garcia Motta
|