Well, actually censorship is not a good thing. Some people are offended by (and censor) things besides porn.
I am offended by the word "nigger". Let's say I am a librarian and I don't want that word in my library. What books do I get rid of? Try Huckleberry Finn, one of the greatest American novels. (This really happens.)
Or let's say I'm a conservative Christian who thinks that witches are real and evil. You know what books I would ban? Harry Potter. The Wizard of Oz.
The dictionary has offensive words in it. Some people want to ban it. Seriously.
Or...let's say you're offended by this story. A powerful pious king (and Peeping Tom) sees a beautiful married woman naked, bathing. He starts lusting after her. He wants her bad. So he murders her husband, then he marries her. And he is never punished by God or by man. But everyone knows he did it. You think that's a story kids should read? Well, that story is in the Bible. The king is David. Should we ban the Bible?
Once you start banning offensive things, you start down a road where someone else determines what you see, hear, read and, ultimately, what you think. That is no one's responsibility (or business) but yours.
Mr. Sherman, the glue you're sniffing must be the good stuff. I couldn't agree with you more. I think you are on target when you talk about the RIAA's motives. But what about Napster's motives?
OK, you're a young company. You own this totally easy file sharing system. It just so happens it works really well for swapping MP3s. And any dope could use it!
Suddenly you get a ton of venture capital. And you're in the big leagues. It looks like you are going to make a ton of money. You'll be the next Bill Gates!
You figure that swapping copyrighted material is legally dubious. But you rationalize that no one is going to make a stink. And if they do? Look at IBM, look at the VCR. Copying MP3 files is the same thing.
Then, the bottom falls out. You have expensive lawyers in even more suits coming after you. Judges throw you out of the court. I looks as if your money is going bye-bye. Your dreams of schmoozing with the President are dashed. Things look really awful? What do you do?
You offer the RIAA a compromise. You figure that the suits are more interested in money than in the principle of copyright. And you figure that sooner or later, they'll come to you with an agreement, a working relationship where you can both make tons of money. Napster becomes subscription-based, or users pay per download. Whatever. But Napster lives by paying the RIAA protection money.
Will it work? I don't think so. I think the record companies will shut down Napster, create their own file-swapping systems (Napster clones, I'll bet). And keep all the money for themselves.
The actors are playing their parts very well, don't you think? They certainly are keeping in character.
I don't get your argument. Current copyright laws are something different than the founders intended? So what? Civil rights laws are different also. Should we re-establish slavery because the founders were slave owners?
The present copyright situation does suck. As if it was any better in the past. Shakespeare didn't even own the rights to his plays. His theater company did. (That's why he became a shareholder in the theater.)
And even the theater couldn't control their property. Some time, when you're not worshipping the Constitution, read some of the 'foul' Hamlet manuscripts. They were created by unscrupulous publishers who wanted to sell the play, but they didn't have access to the script. So they got someone to go to the play, try to memorize it, then they would publish it illegally and keep the money. Shakespeare didn't make a dime off these books. [But we got great garbled speeches like, "The question is to be or not to be/Aye, there's the rub..."]
Library of Congress explains copyright for you
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
Last week, I interviewed David Carson, a copyright attorney at the Library of Congress in D.C., for a story on this very issue. He (obviously) fully favors adapting existing laws to cover copyright issues on the Internet. Here is his argument. Copyright is just what it says. The author has the sole right to copy and distribute her work, whether it be text, code, music, choreography, etc. She can give it away, if she likes. She can sell it. But since she created it, she decides who copies it, and how it gets distributed. Copyright, he says, is necessary because it gives the author financial incentive to create. And if that incentive is taken away, who is going to be able to create? Rich people and only rich people. Middle- and low-income artists will be knocked out of the game because their creation will be worthless, literally. Kiss the next Beatles good-bye. Digitial technology and the Internet makes copyright problematic, as Katz points out, since copying is easy and perfect, and distributing is easy and cheap. Once a piece of digital information is created and given to ONLY ONE OTHER PERSON, there is no way for her to protect her copyright. And, according to him, copyright law is getting more and more cumbersome. A good law, as he points out, is clear and easy to understand. As technology advances, copyright law gets more confusing. That makes the whole copyright system shaky. It seems to me that copyright law is getting worse and worse. And it's nearly unenforceable on the Internet. And a toothless law is a worthless law. Pretty much, he said that the government is trying to enforce copyright law through guilt. All right, you naughty children, don't you see that it's not nice to copy someone's work without paying for it! You should be ashamed of yourselves! And that's lame. I would be interested in hearing alternative ways for artists, programmers, choreographers, designers to be protected and paid for their work. Because, frankly, the copyright laws don't work in cyberspace, and they never really worked in the real world either.
I'm not a geek. I'm an artist with a deep admiration for the intellectual prowess of geeks.
But enough kissing of butt.
I work as an actor and playwright in (that decidedly old-economy art form, that creaky, mad old uncle) the theater. However, it's no secret that almost no one can make a living in the theater. (I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that while one can make a killing in the theater, one can't make a living.)
Here in New York, as in most places, a theater artists have the grim reality of demeaning day jobs, late rent, etc. Blah, blah, blah. Insert violin music.
I have tried applying the open source model to producing theater. While not an unqualified success, it gives me hope that artists might be able to use it to (finally) find a better way to earn their keep and make their art.
In 1993, I wanted to direct "Romeo & Juliet". I had about $800 to spend. I quickly learned, however, that theater rental would run about $7,000! And that wasn't counting other budget items like programs, costumes, props, fight directors, actors, etc. I quickly despaired.
Then I found out that I could get a park permit for $25. But the catch was this: I couldn't charge the audience. It had to be free.
That was seven years ago. By doing productions in the parks for free, I have been able to raise more money faster than most theater companies. Thousands of people come every summer to enjoy Shakespeare in their local park. They make contributions, as does the government, corporations and foundations. I make a goodly portion of my annual income doing Shakespeare. (How many people can say that?) But it wouldn't have worked if I had charged people money.
How does this relate to MP3? I think that musicians (and the rest of the artists) don't necessarily have to buy into the current economic structure. Maybe there is another way of doing it. Maybe there are other ways to create art and support yourself at the same time.
Maybe you open source guys can teach us a thing or two. Maybe you can help us apply what you've learned to our dilemma.
I would encourage you to do so. The economic model for producing theater, dance, art, music, is old and stodgy. It needs a breath of fresh air.
We would all be better off. Artists and audiences.
(By the by, if you need to make a tax-deductible contribution to a fine non-profit organization, let me know. I can hook you up.)
Slashdot Mirror
18 different ways. Yup, that's seems finite to me.
Well, actually censorship is not a good thing. Some people are offended by (and censor) things besides porn.
I am offended by the word "nigger". Let's say I am a librarian and I don't want that word in my library. What books do I get rid of? Try Huckleberry Finn, one of the greatest American novels. (This really happens.)
Or let's say I'm a conservative Christian who thinks that witches are real and evil. You know what books I would ban? Harry Potter. The Wizard of Oz.
The dictionary has offensive words in it. Some people want to ban it. Seriously.
Or...let's say you're offended by this story. A powerful pious king (and Peeping Tom) sees a beautiful married woman naked, bathing. He starts lusting after her. He wants her bad. So he murders her husband, then he marries her. And he is never punished by God or by man. But everyone knows he did it. You think that's a story kids should read? Well, that story is in the Bible. The king is David. Should we ban the Bible?
Once you start banning offensive things, you start down a road where someone else determines what you see, hear, read and, ultimately, what you think. That is no one's responsibility (or business) but yours.
Mr. Sherman, the glue you're sniffing must be the good stuff. I couldn't agree with you more. I think you are on target when you talk about the RIAA's motives. But what about Napster's motives?
OK, you're a young company. You own this totally easy file sharing system. It just so happens it works really well for swapping MP3s. And any dope could use it!
Suddenly you get a ton of venture capital. And you're in the big leagues. It looks like you are going to make a ton of money. You'll be the next Bill Gates!
You figure that swapping copyrighted material is legally dubious. But you rationalize that no one is going to make a stink. And if they do? Look at IBM, look at the VCR. Copying MP3 files is the same thing.
Then, the bottom falls out. You have expensive lawyers in even more suits coming after you. Judges throw you out of the court. I looks as if your money is going bye-bye. Your dreams of schmoozing with the President are dashed. Things look really awful? What do you do?
You offer the RIAA a compromise. You figure that the suits are more interested in money than in the principle of copyright. And you figure that sooner or later, they'll come to you with an agreement, a working relationship where you can both make tons of money. Napster becomes subscription-based, or users pay per download. Whatever. But Napster lives by paying the RIAA protection money.
Will it work? I don't think so. I think the record companies will shut down Napster, create their own file-swapping systems (Napster clones, I'll bet). And keep all the money for themselves.
The actors are playing their parts very well, don't you think? They certainly are keeping in character.
I don't get your argument. Current copyright laws are something different than the founders intended? So what? Civil rights laws are different also. Should we re-establish slavery because the founders were slave owners?
The present copyright situation does suck. As if it was any better in the past. Shakespeare didn't even own the rights to his plays. His theater company did. (That's why he became a shareholder in the theater.)
And even the theater couldn't control their property. Some time, when you're not worshipping the Constitution, read some of the 'foul' Hamlet manuscripts. They were created by unscrupulous publishers who wanted to sell the play, but they didn't have access to the script. So they got someone to go to the play, try to memorize it, then they would publish it illegally and keep the money. Shakespeare didn't make a dime off these books. [But we got great garbled speeches like, "The question is to be or not to be/Aye, there's the rub..."]
Last week, I interviewed David Carson, a copyright attorney at the Library of Congress in D.C., for a story on this very issue. He (obviously) fully favors adapting existing laws to cover copyright issues on the Internet. Here is his argument. Copyright is just what it says. The author has the sole right to copy and distribute her work, whether it be text, code, music, choreography, etc. She can give it away, if she likes. She can sell it. But since she created it, she decides who copies it, and how it gets distributed. Copyright, he says, is necessary because it gives the author financial incentive to create. And if that incentive is taken away, who is going to be able to create? Rich people and only rich people. Middle- and low-income artists will be knocked out of the game because their creation will be worthless, literally. Kiss the next Beatles good-bye. Digitial technology and the Internet makes copyright problematic, as Katz points out, since copying is easy and perfect, and distributing is easy and cheap. Once a piece of digital information is created and given to ONLY ONE OTHER PERSON, there is no way for her to protect her copyright. And, according to him, copyright law is getting more and more cumbersome. A good law, as he points out, is clear and easy to understand. As technology advances, copyright law gets more confusing. That makes the whole copyright system shaky. It seems to me that copyright law is getting worse and worse. And it's nearly unenforceable on the Internet. And a toothless law is a worthless law. Pretty much, he said that the government is trying to enforce copyright law through guilt. All right, you naughty children, don't you see that it's not nice to copy someone's work without paying for it! You should be ashamed of yourselves! And that's lame. I would be interested in hearing alternative ways for artists, programmers, choreographers, designers to be protected and paid for their work. Because, frankly, the copyright laws don't work in cyberspace, and they never really worked in the real world either.
I'm not a geek. I'm an artist with a deep admiration for the intellectual prowess of geeks.
But enough kissing of butt.
I work as an actor and playwright in (that decidedly old-economy art form, that creaky, mad old uncle) the theater. However, it's no secret that almost no one can make a living in the theater. (I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that while one can make a killing in the theater, one can't make a living.)
Here in New York, as in most places, a theater artists have the grim reality of demeaning day jobs, late rent, etc. Blah, blah, blah. Insert violin music.
I have tried applying the open source model to producing theater. While not an unqualified success, it gives me hope that artists might be able to use it to (finally) find a better way to earn their keep and make their art.
In 1993, I wanted to direct "Romeo & Juliet". I had about $800 to spend. I quickly learned, however, that theater rental would run about $7,000! And that wasn't counting other budget items like programs, costumes, props, fight directors, actors, etc. I quickly despaired.
Then I found out that I could get a park permit for $25. But the catch was this: I couldn't charge the audience. It had to be free.
That was seven years ago. By doing productions in the parks for free, I have been able to raise more money faster than most theater companies. Thousands of people come every summer to enjoy Shakespeare in their local park. They make contributions, as does the government, corporations and foundations. I make a goodly portion of my annual income doing Shakespeare. (How many people can say that?) But it wouldn't have worked if I had charged people money.
How does this relate to MP3? I think that musicians (and the rest of the artists) don't necessarily have to buy into the current economic structure. Maybe there is another way of doing it. Maybe there are other ways to create art and support yourself at the same time.
Maybe you open source guys can teach us a thing or two. Maybe you can help us apply what you've learned to our dilemma.
I would encourage you to do so. The economic model for producing theater, dance, art, music, is old and stodgy. It needs a breath of fresh air.
We would all be better off. Artists and audiences.
(By the by, if you need to make a tax-deductible contribution to a fine non-profit organization, let me know. I can hook you up.)