Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Update on freeyourstuff.cc (content/user liberation)

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 11/05/16 12:03, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> Maybe not all, but quite many of them hope to make a profit from 
> their creations.
That doesn't enter into a discussion on ethics.

> Unfortunately, whether you "subscribe" to the world view or not,
> the fact stands that authors, news outlets, etc. are all publishing
> their copyrighted creations in hopes of selling them to a large
> number of people.
Pretty close to nobody is doing that. What most artists in most
disciplines do is have someone distribute copies of their works. These
distributors typically request money for those copies. Some of the
distributors go further, and chastise anyone who has obtained copies
outside of their controlled distribution. In some industries the artist
doesn't really make any money from this (music is an example of this),
and in some industries it's even unclear who the artists are (film). But
in *very* few industries are any artists today making some piece of art
that they then try to sell.

To be clear about my own views: Selling a copy is fine. But denying
anyone the freedoms to do whatever they want with the copies isn't.

> It has nothing to do with "freedoms for our cultural heritage", 
> unless you plan on positing the false dichotomy that copyright 
> protection can only be nonexistent or infinite.
There are varying degrees of copyright "protection". Some of them are
lesser evils in today's society (the GPL), but most of them are not.
Copyright should not exist, but it necessarily exists due to other
societal problems. Any copyright that isn't constructed to fix those
societal problems, and even worse if it adds to them (ND/NC/etc.) has no
ethical virtue.

> In the end, I think you are confusing the term "copyright". Despite
>  it's name, copyright is not a "right" of the artists. It is an 
> economical mechanism (albeit an incorrectly executed one, in my 
> opinion) to allow artists to more easily profit from their
> creations for a limited period of time, thus encouraging the actual
> creation of content.
You continue to put artists on a pedestal as "creators", yet you
belittle their art into mere "content". As for "profit" as in financial
income, I don't think that is some creator given birthright. If you
can't make money off your art, then you need to deal with that. If
society doesn't value art, that's society's prerogative, but in most
countries there is funding for art, and there are means of income as
an artist if you are creative enough (and hopefully, as an artist, you
are creative). If you can't find them, then perhaps you should get a
job that benefits society in a better way.

> And I personally believe that the rights of an individual over 
> information are not so extensive that the government should not be
>  allowed to restrict the commercial use of it. Non-commercial use?
>  Well that's a different story. As you say later, "Information
> wants to be free". But regulating business and profit is well
> within the authority of the government.
"Regulating" here is another word for "controlling". And the reason for
controlling someone is to divide and subjugate them -- to oppress them.
Government should not "be allowed" to do anything that limits my
freedom any more than other people should.

> That is a *vast* oversimplification of the situation, and really 
> does not make any sense at all with regards to my argument. Are
> you trying to say that because something as simple as the C note 
> shouldn't be patentable (a completely different concept than 
> copyright), that an author shouldn't be able to profit from their 
> original creation for a brief period of time?
We're emailing a discussions list. Did you really want me to explain all
of economy in an email? I'm actually too busy working on free art at the
moment, and thought that my point was clear enough.

> If you're trying to point out the fact that the concept of 
> "derivative works" is a very large gray area, troubled with
> hundreds of years of case law, and that nobody is really sure where
> to draw the line between a derivative work and an original
> creation, then I observe your point.
This applies to any law about anything. Law is just theology + magic.

> Even the free software movement has had its moments where authors 
> were not sure whether, under the letter of the law, if something 
> qualified as "derivative" and thus was subject to the terms of the
>  GPL. But just because one area of the law is gray does not mean
> that the entire concept of copyright is useless and should be
> disposed of.
Copyright is as mentioned an entirely necessary hack to our society.
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=dCcY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----