Slashdot Mirror
The Grateful Dead vs. Archive.org
An anonymous reader writes "E! Online has an article about friction between archive.org and the surviving members of the Grateful Dead. They have come to an amicable understanding after some confusion involving online bootlegs." From the article: "A week after some of the surviving members of the Grateful Dead ordered a nonprofit site to remove free downloads of the seminal jam band's concerts--sparking massive online backlash and a Deadhead petition calling for a boycott of all band-related merchandise--the band has reversed its position. 'The Grateful Dead remains as it always has--in favor of tape trading,' spokesman Dennis McNally tells the Associated Press. "
The Grateful Dead has been one (big) example of a band that succeeded without the need for coercive copyright protections. One could argue that they did still use trademark, but they are closer to the anarchocapitalist goal than most popular bands.
The Dead made their money the right way -- by performing a service for their customers worthy of continual profits. No job requires copyyright.
I don't believe in copyright as I don't see how anyone can use Congress and the courts to enforce income on non-continuing work. It is ridiculous.
The Dead's backtrack on their standards shows how corrupting law can be. How a band that has made millions over decades could turn is beyond me. The law is culpable -- the temptation to forcibly control what isn't in your possession is that strong.
I think this could be a huge blow to that scene (as well as the aging of the fanbase and the unconstitutional drug laws). I've been supporting (financially) only bands who don't support copyright, and I'm meeting and convincing more bands to forgo the protections in order to command a higher ticket price. Give away 1000 CDs ($215), include your next 4 months concert schedule and ask for $1 more per ticket. If the music is good, you'll profit with no use of force.
The strict anarchocapitalist view hoods that property rights are what sets all other rights. Property is physical, not ethereal. Once the physical item is bartered, you lose control of that particular item. Copyright started as a 7 year protective mechanism solely for the creator. We can see that all legal coercion is bad as there are no checks on the extension of power.
(note I blogged about this today)
This kind of reminds me of the "This land is your land"-debacle. Woody Guthrie, who originally wrote the song, used the following copyright:
This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.
Still, somehow the above copyright notice was revoked, and after Guthries death, the song passed into ownership of a record label, that claims ownership to it.
I am a strong beliver in the capitalist system and right to own property, but that right _must_ include the right to give property away.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Copyright helps protect the owner from several bad things including: keeping someone else from modifying your work in a way you do not want it to be and then attributing it to you (What if someone changed Schindlers List to be favourable to the Nazi's and then stamped Speilbergs name on it? It's copyright law, among others, that protects against this. In most of Europe, the original copyright owner cannot give up his right of "creative control" although in the US you can sell that right and it is usually demanded), knockoffs and forgeries (I am all for sampling, etc. and so are some copyright holders, but full fledged forgeries are out and out stealing. It takes a lot of work and money to make a brand or name, etc. and when someone co-ops that for financial gain, it is theft of real value.)
If you want to go after someone about how screwed up copyright laws are (especially in the US but it is having a viral effect accross the pond), then go after Congressmen and the lawyers egging them on. I like the idea put forth by a Judge in Canada (sorry, can't remember my source to cite) where he proposed limiting the length applied (it used to be 28 years max here) and change copyright to fall under tort rules. Meaning that you could never really criminalize it. Tort law litigation would mean that a plaintiff would actually have to prove they were legally "wronged" and further prove real damages. The only results would either be an order to stop the injurous activity and/or monetary damages. None of this "you will go to jail if you copy that CD" BS. I think that makes a whole lot more sense than the pseudo-criminalization we have now.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.