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. "

Comments

Re:WWJD

[/ASCII]

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Still, somehow the above copyright notice was revoked, and after Guthries death, the song passed into ownership of a record label, that claims ownership to it.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.

Re:Forgetting the most basic right: property

[Spacejock]

It's well known that the average book signing is attended by 4 people. At $1 - $2 per copy royalty the author can just about buy themselves a cup of coffee and a muffin with the proceeds.

Authors make money by taking a small percentage from the cover price of each book sold. They can't make money from live performances (authors are usually a pretty boring bunch) and the money they DO make from selling their books isn't enough to live on in 99% of cases. Therefore they teach or lecture or work as writers-in-residence or have part- or full- time jobs, all of which means they write less than they would if they were full time writers.

Yes, I'm a published author and no, I can't see how any system other than what we have now is going to work better - or even come close. Forget about six-figure advances and 'richer than the queen' - only 2 percent of books released each year sell more than 1000 copies. 1000 copies == peanuts in royalties == don't give up the day job. The occasional mega-best-seller skews public perception so that published author equals mega wealthy. As if, and if only.

The first book in my Hal Spacejock SF/Humour series is selling well (Reached #3 on the Dymocks SF/Fantasy bestseller list), although I'm still a complete unknown and my books are only available in Australia so far. On the bright side, anything better than 1000 copies puts me in the top 2% of all published authors ;-)