[Community_studios] Re: [DMCA_Discuss] Copyright is essentially wrong (I'm surprised no one's mentioned this from today's)

[Alex]

Anatoly Volynets wrote:

> On Thursday 02 May 2002 08:27 pm, Alex wrote:
> > Ah, and here's were we start getting into the muddy waters of why
> > copyrights came into fashion in the first place. If the original author(s)
> > of 1001 Arabian Nights could have copyrighted their works, Disney couldn't
> > have made (alas, are STILL making) a gazillion bucks on Alladin's tale,
> > while they (or their descendants) make no money and live in relative
> > anonymity. Although copyrights are damaging to the creative process of
> > those not holding said copyrights, they do help to keep the copyright
> > holders from gettting totally screwed by companies that would abuse the
> > spirit of their creations.
>
> Some may abuse, some may not, it is not a meaningfull argument here. Suppose
> someone wants mock Disney's Alladin. I don't mind.

Mocking anyone's art, copyrighted or not, is legal and falls under the umbrella
of satire. I think the potential for abuse is a meaningful argument because
nobody wants to be abused, and it's the overwhelming basis for why there are
copyright laws in the first place. If we're ever going to achieve a
copyrightless society (is that a word??) we need to acknowledge that it is the
main argument for most artists. I believe that most, if not all, of the artists
in the world (music and visual) want nothing more than for as many people as
possible to enjoy and share their art. The one thing they fear the most is
someone stealing their art and making a killing off of it behind their back.


>  "In a perfect world..." people would be
> > honorable, and not abuse creative people's inate generosity.
>
> In fact you cannot determine this at all. You may respect someone's idea and
> work and find out that the author thinks you are completelly wrong. This is
> very casual situation in the world of art and science. It is just normal,
> because real creators takes their ideas and works very personally and are
> very jelous about them.

I think most people can differentiate between Egon Schiele's homage to the Mona
Lisa and Glade Plugins using The Scream in a commercial. I may not like
Scheile's Mona Lisa, but I find the idea of it less offensive than the blatant
commercialization and cheapening of what was, until the advertisement began
airing, a very powerful and meaningful work of art. I think any artist that
could not see the difference shouldn't be showing anyone their art because
they're just a little too sensitive.


> >However, as
> > long as we have the RIAA, Disney, Microsoft and other assimilators who take
> > credit and money for other people's work, it's either resort to the
> > protection copyrights afford, or resign yourself to the fact that you're
> > about to be majorly abused.
>
> Just remove 'However' and you are perfectly right.

Thank you.


> >
> > We need to get rid of people who would rape and pillage our knowledge and
> > creations, and the issue of copyrights would go away on its own. And THAT
> > would be a perfect world...
>
> >
> > Alex Heizer
>
> "Get rid of people" doesn't sound, does it? Think opposite: get rid of
> copyright (which is normal task in terms of law) and enjoy wide access to
> works of art, their derivatives and copies of any kind, whoever makes them.

Again, I don't think most people would want to give up their copyrights knowing
that there are those people that are just waiting to abuse their generosity. I'm
not talking about myself here, necessarily, although it does make me nervous to
think about an illustration with my name on it appearing on a poster put out by
some guy in the south wearing a white hood talking about the virtues of Der
Furher. I was emailed by a band the other day who wanted to use a painting of
mine for their album cover. I let them use it with no problem (they were very
courteous and offered to send me a few copies when the CD came out), but I
couldn't help but think of this discussion and the issues involved. Merely
saying "get rid of copyrights and it will all be okay" isn't the answer because
there's always that spectre there. You're not giving people anything that makes
them feel at ease with the idea. The problem still isn't copyrights, copyrights
are a band-aid to help stop profiteers from bleeding everyone dry. The problem
is the abuse by slimy jerks that have no creativity of their own who would steal
everything from everyone else. If social values don't change at the root level,
people will never feel comfortable giving up the safety-blanket of copyrights.
If we push to abolish copyrights without fixing the real problem (abusers) we'll
come off looking like the enemy because we forced people into giving up their
creations against their will.

Alex

> Anatoly