JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  June 2009

PHD-DESIGN June 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Copyrights and the net

From:

Dave Crossland <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dave Crossland <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:44:07 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager