http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
I can at least understand them having issue with EFF and the like but the article is right: going against Creative Commons is laughable. How DARE you decide to release your own content into the public sphere, how DARE YOU! /me sighs
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
On 25 June 2010 23:15, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-... They're actually gathering money to fight free content. We may need to do something about this.
I can at least understand them having issue with EFF and the like but the article is right: going against Creative Commons is laughable. How DARE you decide to release your own content into the public sphere, how DARE YOU! /me sighs
"Laughable" it may be to us, but they're trying to gather actual lobbying dollars to block the use of such licences. I do think we need to say "er, no" nice and early.
- d.
James Alexander wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
I can at least understand them having issue with EFF and the like but the article is right: going against Creative Commons is laughable. How DARE you decide to release your own content into the public sphere, how DARE YOU! /me sighs
Creative Commons is actually a much bigger threat to their revenue stream than EFF is, which probably explains the animosity. ASCAP administers licenses for the music its members create, collects fees when it is performed, and distributes royalties to members accordingly. The fees also pay for the costs of administering the system. If the material is available through alternative licensing channels, it undermines the ability of ASCAP to make money off of it. It's the same reason that Getty Images won't allow photos they acquire through their Flickr deal to remain available under the site's Creative Commons license options.
The letter looks like garden-variety political fundraising where the money will mostly go toward campaign contributions for select politicians (no doubt with an eye on particular congressional committees). I'm not sure it will be used to hire any actual lobbyists or mount a specific legislative campaign, although we should certainly keep an eye out for further developments in that regard. If that does materialize, I'd be happy to speak out on it in a personal capacity, whether or not the foundation is in a position to do so.
--Michael Snow
Dear Michael,
I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set copyright multiple times.
This is problematic because Wikipedia has a huge plagiarism and copyvio problem that is caused by the same people that would come under conflict above.
This clearly would not affect those who freely license their own material, which is what Wikipedia and the WMF is about. I've donated thousands of hours and hundreds of megs of my own material and my own effort. I find it a slap in the face that you would then make such statements.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
James Alexander wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
I can at least understand them having issue with EFF and the like but the article is right: going against Creative Commons is laughable. How DARE
you
decide to release your own content into the public sphere, how DARE YOU!
/me
sighs
Creative Commons is actually a much bigger threat to their revenue stream than EFF is, which probably explains the animosity. ASCAP administers licenses for the music its members create, collects fees when it is performed, and distributes royalties to members accordingly. The fees also pay for the costs of administering the system. If the material is available through alternative licensing channels, it undermines the ability of ASCAP to make money off of it. It's the same reason that Getty Images won't allow photos they acquire through their Flickr deal to remain available under the site's Creative Commons license options.
The letter looks like garden-variety political fundraising where the money will mostly go toward campaign contributions for select politicians (no doubt with an eye on particular congressional committees). I'm not sure it will be used to hire any actual lobbyists or mount a specific legislative campaign, although we should certainly keep an eye out for further developments in that regard. If that does materialize, I'd be happy to speak out on it in a personal capacity, whether or not the foundation is in a position to do so.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Jeffrey Peters < 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
Dear Michael,
I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set copyright multiple times.
This is problematic because Wikipedia has a huge plagiarism and copyvio problem that is caused by the same people that would come under conflict above.
This clearly would not affect those who freely license their own material, which is what Wikipedia and the WMF is about. I've donated thousands of hours and hundreds of megs of my own material and my own effort. I find it a slap in the face that you would then make such statements.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
I think that Michael was talking about speaking against them if they were targeting the CC license itself (he was responding to my comment about the CC licenses). Given that those are the licenses we use (and that a large pillar of our projects is having as much of our information available under licenses like it) it would make sense that we want to be aware of what was happening and make sure our reasoning was out there.
I, like you, think the issue of the ISP rule is different. In many ways I actually support the 3 strikes rule .It isn't perfect in my mind but much better then the lawsuits which I think harmed the industry far more then it helped. I went to many court cases out of interest and while some were very interesting (there were a couple people that to be honest probably deserved to be sued) most were a mass of depression.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com
Dear James,
If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only what wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law that was being passed that the backers of those were in opposition to (i.e. the anti-piracy law. As I pointed out in the WSJ article, was something Lawrence Lessig would be against as he wanted, if you read the very end, to end any enforcement of copyright laws against P2P people, which happens to be blatant piracy).
I am all for my chosing to release my content without any copyright restrictions. I am against forcing everyone to do the same, as there is a lot of content of my own that I do not release freely and I would not want to be released freely.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:34 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Jeffrey Peters < 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
Dear Michael,
I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of
set
copyright multiple times.
This is problematic because Wikipedia has a huge plagiarism and copyvio problem that is caused by the same people that would come under conflict above.
This clearly would not affect those who freely license their own
material,
which is what Wikipedia and the WMF is about. I've donated thousands of hours and hundreds of megs of my own material and my own effort. I find
it
a slap in the face that you would then make such statements.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
I think that Michael was talking about speaking against them if they were targeting the CC license itself (he was responding to my comment about the CC licenses). Given that those are the licenses we use (and that a large pillar of our projects is having as much of our information available under licenses like it) it would make sense that we want to be aware of what was happening and make sure our reasoning was out there.
I, like you, think the issue of the ISP rule is different. In many ways I actually support the 3 strikes rule .It isn't perfect in my mind but much better then the lawsuits which I think harmed the industry far more then it helped. I went to many court cases out of interest and while some were very interesting (there were a couple people that to be honest probably deserved to be sued) most were a mass of depression.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeffrey, You are aware that Wikimedia projects use creative commons licenses, right? You have noticed that Wikimedia projects delete content on-sight that is a copyright violation? You do know that creative commons is a project to promote the *legal* re-use of copyrighted material?
As the article says:
"While lobby groups EFF and Public Knowledge advocate for liberal copyright laws, Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators."
Given that the Wikimedia projects are smack-bang in the middle of the free-culture movement, don't you think that you might be barking up the wrong tree to suggest that David G is in any way out of place to be pointing this issue out to us on this list?
On 25 June 2010 23:39, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Dear James,
If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only what wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law that was being passed that the backers of those were in opposition to (i.e. the anti-piracy law. As I pointed out in the WSJ article, was something Lawrence Lessig would be against as he wanted, if you read the very end, to end any enforcement of copyright laws against P2P people, which happens to be blatant piracy).
I am all for my chosing to release my content without any copyright restrictions. I am against forcing everyone to do the same, as there is a lot of content of my own that I do not release freely and I would not want to be released freely.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
Dear Liam Wyatt,
Reread my previous emails. I have made it clear that the law that is being discussed and being promoted by the ASCAP is a law that would terminate the internet access of repeat piracy offenders. The only reason why CC et al are involved are through the political advocacy of their creators, most of who were proponents of the P2P piracy and other actions (as you can see from the WSJ article by the CC head).
It has nothing to do with the actual CC licenses as only illegal reuses would be affected.
And "freeculture" is not piracy, just like charity is not theft. Those like myself produce tons of free content that is intended to be free. We have the right not to be associated with law breakers and criminals who steal from those who do not wish their material to be free. Furthermore, since those like myself are academics in nature, we cannot have our material tainted by piracy and the rest, as it would undermine any credibility the material has.
That is why Wikipedia et al takes a hardline stance against copyvios.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Jeffrey, You are aware that Wikimedia projects use creative commons licenses, right? You have noticed that Wikimedia projects delete content on-sight that is a copyright violation? You do know that creative commons is a project to promote the *legal* re-use of copyrighted material?
As the article says:
"While lobby groups EFF and Public Knowledge advocate for liberal copyright laws, Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators."
Given that the Wikimedia projects are smack-bang in the middle of the free-culture movement, don't you think that you might be barking up the wrong tree to suggest that David G is in any way out of place to be pointing this issue out to us on this list?
On 25 June 2010 23:39, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Dear James,
If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only what wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law that was being passed that the backers of those were in opposition to (i.e.
the
anti-piracy law. As I pointed out in the WSJ article, was something Lawrence Lessig would be against as he wanted, if you read the very end, to end
any
enforcement of copyright laws against P2P people, which happens to be blatant piracy).
I am all for my chosing to release my content without any copyright restrictions. I am against forcing everyone to do the same, as there is a lot of content of my own that I do not release freely and I would not
want
to be released freely.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeffrey Peters wrote:
Dear Michael,
I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation would speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of set copyright multiple times.
Jeffrey, it seems the underlying article has confused you about the relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking. That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this tangent gave him an opportunity to link to his previous reporting. However, just because I would be willing to defend copyleft and support Creative Commons, it doesn't mean I have taken any position about a proposal, which is not yet law as far as I know, and apparently was not pushed in a strategic plan produced by an Obama administration executive, who is not an elected official and cannot legally accept contributions, but happened to produce this plan a day before the fundraising letter in question, which curiously does not say anything about what I have just mentioned except the first part involving copyleft and Creative Commons. I think the length of that sentence ought to illustrate just how tenuous the connection is.
--Michael Snow
Dear Michael,
Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself).
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Jeffrey Peters wrote:
Dear Michael,
I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation
would
speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of
set
copyright multiple times.
Jeffrey, it seems the underlying article has confused you about the relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking. That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this tangent gave him an opportunity to link to his previous reporting. However, just because I would be willing to defend copyleft and support Creative Commons, it doesn't mean I have taken any position about a proposal, which is not yet law as far as I know, and apparently was not pushed in a strategic plan produced by an Obama administration executive, who is not an elected official and cannot legally accept contributions, but happened to produce this plan a day before the fundraising letter in question, which curiously does not say anything about what I have just mentioned except the first part involving copyleft and Creative Commons. I think the length of that sentence ought to illustrate just how tenuous the connection is.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself).
We can only go with the information we have. And the information in this case was the actual letter. That letter _nowhere_ specifies what law they are fighting for or against. Instead, it says that they are fighting against groups that "promote Copyleft in order to undermine our Copyright." When _I_ read that, I get the impression that they are fighting against copyleft. Clearly, others have understood the same thing. Apparently to you the combination of having that understanding and being in favor of copyleft is enough for you to attack people and flame them to death. I find that worrysome.
Dear Andre,
I think I have made it clear in my hundreds of megs worth of donations to material to WMF projects that I am in support of the actual licensing. I believe it is important to allow for people who wish to have their content be free to be free.
But as I pointed out from the WSJ, the person behind CC is also behind much of the pro P2P movement that was, early on, illegitimate and piracy based.
If you want to know my fair use credentials and my involvement, I was one of the people involved in the fringe of one of the most important internet fair use court cases of the modern era, but I was lucky enough to not have any of my reproductions of newspaper articles be chosen as part of the lawsuit, so I was able to get out of the mess that ensued. However, I had the ability to, when young, witness the battle of fair use between the various groups first hand.
Being on the other side, as an academic and one who publishes, I see a clear need to be able to separate what is free (my hundreds of articles and such donated to WMF) to what is not (my person column, works, etc).
I have also been a major advocate against those who plagiarize or blatantly steal material from others and post it on Wikipedia. I am a strong believer in producing content that is free, but not taking it and making it free. The means must be proper in order to prove that we are proper. There is a difference between copyleft and piracy, even though some of the founders of the copyleft movement (free material existed before them) are supportive of the piracy/anti-copyright movement.
To protect the free licenses, it would be necessary for us to stamp out plagiarism and the rest. We are not "Robin Hoods" who seek to "steal from the rich to give to the poor". We should be those who originate our own and serve our cause through our own sweat and blood. If someone wants to give up their effort for free, it should be through their own choice. The ASCAP is concerned about efforts within the copyleft community that is based in piracy and not legitimate copyleft originating materials. Those in the copyleft movement should also be concerned about piracy, as it undermines and destroys our cause.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the
expectation
of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself).
We can only go with the information we have. And the information in this case was the actual letter. That letter _nowhere_ specifies what law they are fighting for or against. Instead, it says that they are fighting against groups that "promote Copyleft in order to undermine our Copyright." When _I_ read that, I get the impression that they are fighting against copyleft. Clearly, others have understood the same thing. Apparently to you the combination of having that understanding and being in favor of copyleft is enough for you to attack people and flame them to death. I find that worrysome.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Andre Engels wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself).
We can only go with the information we have. And the information in this case was the actual letter. That letter _nowhere_ specifies what law they are fighting for or against. Instead, it says that they are fighting against groups that "promote Copyleft in order to undermine our Copyright." When _I_ read that, I get the impression that they are fighting against copyleft. Clearly, others have understood the same thing. Apparently to you the combination of having that understanding and being in favor of copyleft is enough for you to attack people and flame them to death. I find that worrysome.
What none of the internet service providers want is a strong enforcement of copyright applied to the activities of their users. These companies profit directly from the activities of their thieving users. Much of their user activity (80-90%) and the visits to the site, clusters around copyright material. Discourage the uploading of copyright material by a 3 strikes policy or direct legal action against file sharers, and a large part of their income disappears.
When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copyleft material in the music world is, with the exception of promotional material, almost zero. When service providers start promoting free licenses to legislators they are doing so in order to undermine copyright within the online world.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
about the relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking. That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this tangent gave him an opportunity to link to his previous reporting.
[snip]
+100
The event David was writing about was that the ASCAP sent out this letter: (in two parts)
http://twitpic.com/1zai6e http://twitpic.com/1zai66
There is no connection obvious there with any particular lawmaking.
Nor am I otherwise aware of any of organizations in question explicitly lobbying for the abolition of copyright though they may have failed, at times, to denounce the claims by others that they were for such an abolition. What I've mostly seen is the advocacy that authors choose less restrictive licensing, opposition to policy which would reduce the current or future public domain, discouraging a legal policy which creates larger punishment for copyright infringement than other more social impacting crimes, and other such activity which should be generally beneficial or at worst neutral to the economic welfare of artists.
It would seems that the ASCAP has conflated the aims of these organizations with those of movie pirates, arguably because doing so is in the ASCAP's interest as the bulk rights collecting societies are on the long end of a dying line of businesses and nothing short of an dramatic expansion of copyright powers is likely to keep them alive. Online distribution doesn't favor having a lot of middle men, certainly not a lot of _profitable_ middlemen... but this detail has little to do with the interests of _artists_ and music consumers that the ASCAP claims to be concerned with here, and certainly doesn't have much of anything to do with any existing law.
On the general subject of business-protection-laws hiding as copyright-laws I would recommend listening to [[Eben Moglen]]'s commentary on the DMCA from a panel at the 2001 Future of Music policy summit at 15:15 in http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/eben.ogg he continued these views on the positions of the 'music industry' at 31:36, "You are listening to a conversation among dead business about how, under certain imaginary conditions, if it only takes long enough for us to recognize that they are dead they might come back to life". If there were a transcript, I'd link to that instead. But there isn't, and Eben's points are really enjoyable, as usual.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.comwrote:
Online distribution doesn't favor having a lot of middle men, certainly not a lot of _profitable_ middlemen...
I've yet to see much evidence of that. Online distribution seems to love middle men as much as any other distribution, and obviously _profitable_ middlemen are the ones providing the greatest benefit. (According to Wikipedia, "iTunes accounts for 70% of worldwide online digital music sales".
That said, online distribution seems to love *different* middle men. That perhaps is more the problem ASCAP is having.
On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
They are effectively trying to fight contract law though which is unlikely to end will for them.
Dear David,
I'm going to donate to their cause.
Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You promote the taking of others who have not consented. To use this list to promote your own selfish desires bothers me.
I would think it would only be right for you to lose access to this list for acting so inappropriately.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
They are effectively trying to fight contract law though which is unlikely to end will for them.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you.
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/25/10 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote:
Dear David,
I'm going to donate to their cause.
Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You promote the taking of others who have not consented. To use this list to promote your own selfish desires bothers me.
I would think it would only be right for you to lose access to this list for acting so inappropriately.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Ryan,
Creative Commons is two things: 1. a license, which only applies to non-pirated work, and 2. those like Gerard who believe in removing copyright as a whole and try to hide illegitimate actions behind legitimate ones. There are thousands of websites that illegally republish music lyrics, poems, books, etc.
The law that is desired would make it so those people lose access. Not those who own their own music, but that which is copyrighted.
Those are the only people that could be targeted.
To try and use this email server to push for a protection of piracy is disgusting, immoral, and inappropriate in any manner. It needs to stop immediately.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you.
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/25/10 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote:
Dear David,
I'm going to donate to their cause.
Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and
published
everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You promote the taking of others who have not consented. To use this list to promote your own selfish desires bothers me.
I would think it would only be right for you to lose access to this list
for
acting so inappropriately.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you.
It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread.
- d.
David Gerard,
This list is not for your political advocacy.
Now, stop trolling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact.
Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list?
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following
you.
It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Please stop with the aggressive threats against other users. It's a) not helpful, b) incredibly inappropriate, and c) not your decision anyway.
-Dan On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote:
David Gerard,
This list is not for your political advocacy.
Now, stop trolling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact.
Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list?
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following
you.
It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dear Dan,
The Foundation-l is not for political advocacy. That is well known. It is disgusting that someone would attempt to use it for that end.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Please stop with the aggressive threats against other users. It's a) not helpful, b) incredibly inappropriate, and c) not your decision anyway.
-Dan On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote:
David Gerard,
This list is not for your political advocacy.
Now, stop trolling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter
of
piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and
he
was proud of that fact.
Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list?
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following
you.
It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi, Jeffery. You are obviously upset about this, and it's coming across strongly enough in your writing that it undermines the effectiveness of the point you are trying to make. I see it's pretty hot in DC today. Perhaps now would be a good time for a cold drink and a break? We'll all still be here tomorrow.
William
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
David Gerard,
This list is not for your political advocacy.
Now, stop trolling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact.
Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list?
Jeffrey,
I don't know if you're deliberately trolling, or just ignorant, but either way your behavior is unacceptable.
I've placed you on moderation until further notice.
Austin
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
David Gerard,
This list is not for your political advocacy.
Now, stop trolling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter
of
piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and
he
was proud of that fact.
Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list?
Jeffrey,
I don't know if you're deliberately trolling, or just ignorant, but either way your behavior is unacceptable.
I've placed you on moderation until further notice.
Austin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeff, I would like to think that you have a modicum of respect for me. Please re-read your posts, you are being a dick. I understand that other wikis are causing a bit of stress, but this is entirely inappropriate. I will buy you a beer and tell you this eye to eye.
Jeffrey Peters wrote:
David Gerard,
This list is not for your political advocacy.
Now, stop trolling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of piracy in addition to CC. That has been established for a long time and he was proud of that fact.
Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list?
To be fair Lessig was focusing on 30 seconds of distorted background music in a home movie (which was a fair-use), and the remixing of music and video to create some mashup which has in itself some creative input. Lessig is really only concerned with the later issues and has often stood out against the straight copy. In particular he declined to speak up for Tenenbaum. “P2P filesharing is wrong and kid’s shouldn’t do it,” http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/labels-cite-academics-ema...
The problem with the mashups is that there is no clear way to license the different parts, to do so would probably be prohibitively expensive for the masher upper, and in some cases licenses may well be refused. Legislators are currently feeling the weight of this themselves as their campaigns are using mashups and being hit by DMCA takedown notices and lawsuits by the copyright owners. McCain, DeVore ...
The licensing issue is the thing that needs sorting. A balance has to be struck between the masher upper and the legitimate claims of the creators of the works. Some have suggested that the service provider should be paying a fee for the content hosted.
Jeffrey Peters wrote:
Dear David,
I'm going to donate to their cause.
Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You promote the taking of others who have not consented. To use this list to promote your own selfish desires bothers me.
I would think it would only be right for you to lose access to this list for acting so inappropriately.
Old bullshit never dies. I was just reading an article in a similar vein, "The Ethics of Copyright" by Grant Allen in the December 1880 issue of /Macmillan's Magazine/. It still hasn't grown any roses. . . which says something about its lack of fertility.
By and large those who most loudly harangue about piracy fail to notice that interest here is seldom about reproducing the lyrics of current popular music, but about gathering the flotsam of intellectual efforts. The law of the sea clearly distinguishes between piracy and gathering flotsam. If the taking of music lyrics constitutes theft, no-one is more capable of maintaining that monopoly than the recording industry.
It often seems too that the Law of Copyright comes into conflict with the Law of Supply and Demand. Your excellent articles about various significant poems of the English language may be excellent examples of original research that clearly deserves to be in Wikipedia, but demand is not solely derived from the excellence of an author's efforts. The patent office records are replete with records of ideas that easily passed the test of originality, but whose utility was abysmally laughable. Those inventors, like many authors, inflate the value of their own efforts well beyond the demand, and without regards to the effects of competition. The costs of producing physical copies of even the best articles of literary criticism far exceeds the price that the market will bear. The writer's efforts could be assembled in an anthology, but the the buyer needs to buy a packet of irrelevant material to have that one gem. If that one gem constitutes 5% of an anthology, no publisher is suggesting that I could have a copy of that article alone for 5% of the price.
Novels may contain enough material to support separate marketing, but I would welcome a realistic analysis of the economics of a single sonnet.
Ray
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
They are effectively trying to fight contract law though which is unlikely to end will for them.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:04:19PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
I'd love to know what they're thinking.
A quiet, noncommittal inquiry with some folks at ASCAP might be enlightening.
No matter how they treat the request, it'd be good recon. And you never know, sometimes one can make a friend. :-)
Who can we send?
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:04:19PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-...
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
I'd love to know what they're thinking.
A quiet, noncommittal inquiry with some folks at ASCAP might be enlightening.
No matter how they treat the request, it'd be good recon. And you never know, sometimes one can make a friend. :-)
Who can we send?
sincerely, Kim Bruning
-- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If this is a serious proposal to pursue, I can do that with a couple phone calls.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org