Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons Responds To ASCAP Letter
An anonymous reader writes "Drew Wilson at ZeroPaid has a followup to the story about ASCAP telling its members that organizations like EFF and Creative Commons are undermining copyright. A spokesperson from Creative Commons said, 'It's very sad that ASCAP is falsely claiming that Creative Commons works to undermine copyright. Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses — plain and simple, without copyright, these tools don't even work.' He also said, 'Many tens of thousands of musicians, including acts like Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Radiohead, and Snoop Dogg, have used Creative Commons licenses to share with the public.' Many ASCAP members are already expressing their disappointment with the ASCAP letter over at Mind the Gap. Sounds like ASCAP will be in damage control for a while."
Nice to know that they work with the best interests of their clients in mind!
Although the focus is on arists of media and music, the implications to the software industry are staggering. Imagine if GPL, CC, APL, and many other licenses were deemed to be invalid as a result of ASCAP and similar lobbying. All that work you and I have put into creating a free software ecosystem are for nought, because some some media execs want to get paid for performances by musicians who didn't sign with them.
I donated to Creative Commons, EFF, and FSF for the first time today. You might not care about the media aspects but our industry absolutely depends on copyleft licenses and creative freedom, so I encourage all of you to do the same.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
The death throws of an obsolete industry are amusing and sad. The lazy abusers of other people's talents do not like to see their revenue stream cease as those who perform all the hard labor find alternate methods of representation and distribution. Claims that they represent the viewpoints, and wish to protect the interests, of their sheep, fall upon unsympathetic ears. The revolution will not be televised, but it will be on Youtube, under CC.
Dear ASCAP,
Please don't spread lies. The people behind EFF, CC, PK et alia, are smarter than you, and easily ruffled by people getting the facts wrong.
You're in for a schooling.
http
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
When will the RIAA and ASCAP take a few minutes of their time to actually read the licenses from Creative Commons to see that CC actually complements copyright. Without copyright, CC wouldn't even work.
I just can't help but laugh at the complete lack of understanding of what Copyleft really is. Here's my stuff, you may quote it, keep a copy for yourself, pass copies along to your friends, but include attribution to the source. What the heck is so damned difficult to understand?
With ACTA looming and governments already planning how to implement it, it seems that unless something else completely disruptive occurs there will be a battle over two competing rights models: individual rights versus copyrights (and other intellectual property rights). I respect intellectual property - to an extent. I believe in copyrights that help spur creativity in arts and sciences, but the original plan for copyrights as endorsed by the US Constitution was for them to grant limited time monopolies to creators. That model has been rejected because of the special interest corruption from multi-national corporations, and now the media cartels are working to make the federal government their handmaiden and servant on the Internet. If you haven't read it yet, the current draft of ACTA calls for action against copyright offenders at the inchoate stage, before the infringement has even been committed. It calls for the creation of an "impending infringer" task-force with a broad mandate to prevent copyright infringement that hasn't even taken place yet. Media reports are claiming that under ACTA it may become illegal to search for the keywords "Metallica album download," even if no infringing material is downloaded. If true, it would destroy the Internet as we know it, and we also know that once government gets its "nose under the tent" that will be just the beginning of its regulatory and enforcement regime. So, as I said before, while I have limited respect for intellectual property and believe it is morally wrong to enjoy another's work by copying it without approval, I believe in individual rights over copyrights. And moreover, I believe in maintaining a relatively free Internet with a certain level of copyright infringement going on if the alternative is clamping down on freedom online in a draconian way to discourage infringement. As the New Deal, the War on Poverty/Great Society, War on Drugs (and some may also argue the War on Terror) have shown us, the government cure to what ails society is usually far worse than the disease.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
While the spokesperson for creative commons may or may not be right, I would like to know that tens of thousands is an accurate number and where he got it from. I hope he is right but I am skeptical that this is a real figure. I know all the artists he mentioned have used creative commons ("including acts like Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Radiohead, and Snoop Dogg"). In fact Nine Inch Nails is my favorite band and I was excited when Trent Reznor made that decision for Nine Inch Nails and it's being followed through with his new band How To Destroy Angels (lead by his wife Mariqueen Maandig). I felt these were strong acts in supporting Creative Commons which has served me and many others very well in our business and personal lives. None the less, can someone please point me to a site, registry, document or anything that says tens of thousands of musicians in a reputable manner as the spokesperson has claimed?
Most creative commons license are undermining copyright, by using it against itself. You can't take away the weapon without killing the defendant.
For whatever reason the governments of the world got into misguided attempts to 'promote' wealth creation by actually limiting human ability to do so by copying, these misguided attempts include copyrights and patents (though trademarks are really not such a big problem).
Having a good working economy relies on production, not on consumption, and when society starts artificially limiting human ability to produce by copying or in any other way, that society starts losing the edge on its productive capacity and eventually loses its main wealth generator - production (unless of-course, that society does not rely on production but on something else - raw material extraction or wars and stealing things others produce).
Copyright and patent laws kill economy, that's all there is to it.
You can't handle the truth.
After this pr disaster I think they should change name to distance themselves. Maybe ASHAT?
Dear http, We lawyers at ASCAP are interested in only one thing, getting paid. We don't give a flying fsck about you, our client, or the supposed represented population of ASCAP. As long as we keep getting paid, we don't particularly care who wins or looses, or the lives we ruin. In fact, we think we'll start with you.
>>>The death throws of an obsolete industry are amusing and sad
Perhaps but it will make great footage for the TV news! (hops into airplane). Say goodbye to ASCAP and RIAA! (flies plane into building)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
ASCAP is (almost) correct. While copyleft doesn't undermine copyright, it does undermine the copyright cartel. If artists begin to license worthwhile, popular, and (monetarily) successful works under copyleft -- if artists succeed while granting people more rights than they, strictly, have to -- then consumers might begin to wonder why more artists -- and big companies -- don't do that. Using copyleft could become a competitive advantage. And then how will Big Music justify restricting users?
If the sheep wake up, the whole industry -- as currently organized -- falls apart. And that's what ASCAP is worried about.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The copyright advocates are undermining copyright by turning a decent idea (limited copyright) into a ridiculous one (holding culture hostage for as long as possible to prop up failing business models). The more they push their agenda the more people will call shenanigans on them and embrace copyleft (if not "piracy").
Boycott ASCAP members. Email your favorite ASCAP artist and let them know why.
1 copyLEFT needs copyRIGHT to actually "work" (you go on the hook for copyright violations if you break a copyleft license)
2 This "Brilliant" act by ASCAP gives the Copyleft folks something they can always use
A COMMON ENEMY
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Is there a list of ASCAP signed artists out there so that those of us who wish to boycott them will actually know just who to boycott?
I'd hate to help fund ASCAP even inadvertantly.
How about this instead:
Hey, ASCAP, why do you think you should have the right to do what you want with your stuff but we shouldn't have the right to do what we want with ours? If you don't like Creative Commons licenses, don't use them. Don't tell us what licenses to use for our works. They're our works, not yours. That's what copyright means.
ASCAP's aim in the original letter was to stop people releasing their own works under copyleft licences. This would effectively ban Wikipedia, the entire text of which is CC-by-sa. Does ASCAP really want that particular fight? (I've already suggested on foundation-l that WMF respond to this issue.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The EFF is slightly more moderate, although they do employ Doctorow, and seem to have a habit of doing what they can to prevent any enforcement of copyright.
Cory Doctorow hasn't been employed by the EFF in the last 5 years. He's been a full-time writer since January 2006.
Can we assume that your other claims are of similar accuracy?
Your joke sucked. Deal with it. You are not Penn or Teller.
Do realize that 2,000 sq ft is less even a 45 x 45 feet? The company I work for has a warehouse that big, which is about half our total size. We're a pretty small business, with usually about a dozen employees (or less). And 6 speaker? That's not hard to reach... Some PCs have more than that these days.
I'm not sure if it's your understanding of the word "only" or the measure of "2,000 sq ft" that is faulty here.
It has nothing to do with copyright principles or any clever agenda.
Copyleft cuts ASCAP style enforcers out of the money loop. Plain and simple, it hits them where it hurts: the business model. The letter is just FUD to scare up lobby money - though anything they could accomplish that would effectively halt copyleft licensing would be damaging to the US IT industry.
I found their shows interesting until two episodes.
One, the recycling issue. Penn basically made the argument that recycling is unnercessary because it requires material separation by each person throwing stuff away. He highlighted this by asking people to separate garbage into 4, 6, 10, 15 different piles and pointed out that it was ridiculous. The only content of the entire episode that made sense was that recycling costs energy and the only useful recyclable material is tin. Everything else uses more energy and chemicals and time and transportation fuel than it would waste in a landfill. Not sure if that's true, but it was the only part I couldn't immediately discount. I still recycle glass, though.
The other one was the toilet seat that contains less bacteria than a dude's scrotum. They showed some "average, normal typical toilet stalls" which don't match anything I've ever seen unless the cleaning crew was just in there. You see 4 toilets and have to poop, you choose the one with the least amount of bacteria-ridden piss, clean it off, and then use toilet paper or the seat covers. You should assume that if it looks clean, the guy before you cleaned piss of the seat, because guys piss on the seat. I won't even mention the female corollaries. Three people using the same seat shouldn't cause problems, and the bacteria probably die slowly. But the suggestion was that because the clean toilets in their professional office building were clean, you don't need to use anything between you and the seat that touched the fat guy's sweaty hairy dirty unshowered ass before you, and the previous guy's piss he cleaned off the seat.
I immediately deleted anything Penn ever said from my memory, except for these I retain as examples.
Yeah it's off topic, get over it we're having a discussion here.
Why is Creative Commons not working to undermine copyright? Copyrights lasting 9-14 years are clearly justified, but the current system deserves to be undermined.
>>>Penn basically made the argument that recycling is unnercessary because it requires material separation by each person throwing stuff away
Partly but his MAIN argument was that most of the separated items can't be sold, so they are then thrown into the central landfill anyway. So all that work of separation was for naught.
.
>>>The other one was the toilet seat
The only thing I remember about that episode is Penn swabbing the fine-looking ass of a model. Mmmmm. BUT if I recall correctly, the point was that cold dry areas are not really contagious, and it's stupid to be afraid of trivial stuff (like getting hit on the head by a meteorite). Penn & Teller is a hit-or-miss show but even when they miss, they are funny. And at least they make you *think* unlike most TV today. "ORGASMS" is the episode I did not like. No particular reason... just felt that it has no real point for existing, plus I was turned-off by the disgusting closeups of guys/gals orgasming and so I never watched it again.
Vice-versa I really liked that Cheerleader episode. I didn't realize that cheerleading was the most dangerous sport in high school or that it's unregulated by the government. It is rather ridiculous we put our young women into such a dangerous hobby/sport and don't bother to protect them despite injury after injury after injury
.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
this is fud of course, and they know it. it actually only works as an ad hominem attack, which is why we should respond as firmly and friendly as possible in such discussions.
the free, open and cc-nc licenses are a way to specify what you can do with a licensed work beyond the terms of copyright law in your jurisdiction if you want to be bound to the terms of the license.
please help to identify cases in which mafiaa and ass crap are voiding their license whenever they're using freely licensed works without copyright notices - i know other parties involved in the discussion are doing that all over the nets.
we can win the battle. let's help the industry to embrace the future. we might have to explain how it works again and again, because it is too easy for some people to understand: share freely and tell people they can do so as well, or we'll sue the h### out of you.
You forgot something: a big, fat "fuck you, assholes!"
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Uh, No ASCAP, RIAA, MPAAA, and BSA. If you read the Constitution of the United States of America, you will instantly recognize that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act undermines Copyright.
What is the purpose of copyright? To encourage artists to create more useful arts which after a limited monopoly turn over to the public domain.
By encouraging creative commons and similar licensing schemes, the original intent of Copyright as defined in the Constitution is actually being fulfilled.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
yeah everyone knows cory doctrov is an insufferable asshole. but why are you judging all cc users to be same as him?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
ASCAP=ASSHAT? It seems that these butt-heads have taken an idea, (something that does not undermine them in any way) and decided to go out and make enemies. They have gone out and picked a fight. People who really weren't bothering them and who were not undermining their abilities to make all the money their greedy little selves could make. No one was forcing anyone to do anything. The mere idea that these groups exist gets their panties in a bunch. I haven't been supporting EEF, FSF or other groups in the past, but you can bank cash that I will in the future. ASCAP was NOT being harmed in any way, but like the rest of the whole WIPO group, they have made asses out of themselves. They clearly want to take away peoples rights. I wish the American Civil Liberties Association and the American Librarians Association would get a letter of this, and ramp up a big campaign to wipe out ASCAP. Clearly they don't have anyone but the greedy multinationals interests in mind. I also wish that someone would send Michael Moore a letter explaining this (perhaps a documentary would shed light on the issue).
From the "words I've only heard spoken, not seen in print" department: It's "death throes," not "throws". I'm not being a dick about it, I promise, I'm just teaching you a new word. :)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/throes
It's not my intention to pick on you and I freely admit I'm being a spelling nazi.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
I would find them somewhat more amusing if they didn't directly endanger my civil liberties.
Don't feed the trolls.
Someone lacks a sense of humor. Go watch some Penn & Teller and chill out. "And try laughing mutther fukker! Jeez. My achin' ass." - Penn Jillette:
- Martial Arts are Bullshit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_3BSk2TbK4 [youtube.com]
- The War on Fast Food is BS- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEkJMGPHiXE [youtube.com]
- Cheerleaders - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbymhQyq5rQ [youtube.com]
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I'm off-topic, you're insightful *sigh*. Anyway, to further damage my karma: Around here, separation is required because it's easier to recycle glass when it's not among other refuse. Same with tin, paper, and aluminum. Everything else goes in the landfill. Even though it takes a loss on everything but tin, the recycling center here does recycle glass, tin, paper, and aluminum. Someone, somewhere has to separate the items in order for that to happen, unless there's a magic machine that can separate them. Those are in progress, but not used here.
He has a point that the only item of value that can be sold is tin. But the purpose of recycling is to reuse materials, not turn a profit. If you are recycling everything that gets separated, individually, like around here, then his point is completely irrelevant. You separate everything, none of what you separated goes in the landfill, you're saving the recycling center money by doing part of the work for them.
It's still less expensive to get more glass from the ground, but we're lowering our footprint not running a business.
Yeah it's off topic, get over it we're having a discussion here.
And now we have two! :-)
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV