[Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"
saintonge at telus.net
Mon Jun 28 18:33:03 UTC 2010
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.
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
More information about the wikimedia-l