Comments on: Who Owns Culture? at one http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/ Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: ps http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17203 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:35:47 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17203 You can watch Lawrence Lessig – Who owns culture? on 100dimensions

http://www.100dimensions.com/intl/en/ch/ch3300/ch.html

]]>
By: Stephen Judge http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17202 Fri, 04 May 2007 23:15:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17202 Hi,

I have only come across this “Who’s Owns Culture?”, video recently. I was keen to download the Bit Torrent version of the video but the Torrent Tracker at http://www.prodigem.com were Mr. Lessig had his Torrent stored is now gone. As is the tracker listed at http://wilcoworld.net/wired/. Does anybody still have the original Bit Torrent video file that could be upload to the Azureus Vuze http://www.vuze.com ,they host and track video torrents for free.

I would appreciate if someone would do this and make this video file available again.

Steve

]]>
By: Michael Garmahis http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17201 Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:25:28 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17201 It’s amazing story. I was really surprised to read it.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17200 Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:53:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17200 for at least 30 years we have. the only difference now is that you don’t need to be frank zappa or rick wakeman or robert fripp to own one.

Rick Wakeman could only dream of today’s synths when he was journeying to the center of the earth. And Robert Fripp’s “Frippatronics” was only a primitive precursor to – a faint, shadowy glimpse – of todays acidic garage band. Software now can separate many distinct properties of speech and encode them each individually – the vocal cord vibrations amount to little more than a carrier wave for speech, and a very good formant synthesis engine can make Frank Sinatra scat like Ella Fitzgerald or Madonna sing with the inflection of Louis Armstrong. And even these marvelous inventions are but shadowy glimpses of what lies just around the next corner.

And an exclusively DRM solution might not be the answer to that particular case of vanilla ice and his skirt tail ride to the top – but then again, maybe it would. If a DRM technology existed that encoded usage rights into the file itself – say, you may sample this track at a rate of one tenth penny per second published – then the fact the sample was “looped” would have no bearing on final costs… three minutes would still cost the remixer 18 cents for each track sold, thus ensuring a quite fair royalty to the surviving members of Queen – enough, in fact, to perhaps have encouraged “Ice” to find a more affordable track to sample, or perhaps even (shudder) hire musicians to create a new loop track for him.

I think we both well agree on the principle of providing attribution (even monetary, if they so desire) to the originators of a work. But it gets shadowy very, very quickly – and thus far, neither of us have actually commented on THE alleged topic of this panel: the professor’s presentation. I am interested in your thoughts on that; here are mine…

I love this presentation more than any other I have seen here. My ego tells me the good professor has actually heard my voice here, though modesty presumes it was not my voice, but perhaps many other voices out there whom I have never heard, who actually share my views. This gives me encouragement.

But I think the prof is still being a bit too diplomatic, or perhaps just politically correct. I hear him encouraging artists of the “free” mindset to actually produce something and contribute it to the truly free commons, but this is still wrapped in politeness and indirection to the point I fear that message may be lost on all but those who actually do think like myself.

There are scads of “free” creative works out there – the series welcome to the scene being one of my favorites thus far. It’s a fantastic show, produced about a slow budget as one can imagine, built entirely upon this “new media,” but the license permits only sharing of the show as a whole and forbids any “remixing.” This sort of licensing does not give back to the creative community in any more substantial fashion than Vanilla Ice or Madonna – it only permits me, as a “fan,” to help spread the word about a show I happen to enjoy.

What is needed is more truly free work; a show that might become populat enough to become part of the language of our culture, but providing free use of those language elements in the same way as I can “remix” Mozilla or VirtualDub (which has spawned at least three very good competitors). I would like to see the prof make even more direct pleas to this community to step up and put their creativity where their mouth is, so to speak. This presentation is the single best beginning to that dialogue I have heard yet, and I definitely look forward to the next. More importantly, I look forward to seeing results from this beckoning.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17199 Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:49:44 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17199 We never before had instruments that could do what instruments today can do.

for at least 30 years we have. the only difference now is that you don’t need to be frank zappa or rick wakeman or robert fripp to own one.

poptones you make some good points and have certainly given us mices pause to think.

our position is that there ARE lines to be drawn in copyright, but we do agree with you that the dividing line is fuzzy. as it should be.

it seems to us that the rip mix and burn “culture” wants a right of trespass over any line however drawn. their answer to “who owns culture?” is that no one owns it – otherwise artistic expression must concern itself with and be constrained by trespass. this view is congruent with people like Peter Rock who claims the right to copy and distribute “his” purchased property however he sees fit. this is, in our humble opinion, the extremeist view.

both are very good examples of previous precedents being set regarding “mimicking” of existing works.

and both are very good examples that copyright is not an electrified fence that incurs an immediate and painful penalty everytime you brush up against it. properly drawn, copyright borders more resemble shoreline than barbed wire.

anyway, getting back to vanilla ice… it seems clear to us that that cracker should not have been able to rip, mix, and burn queen’s riff without the permission of queen. free culture says he should be able to – once released into the “culture” queen could no longer claim any right in the riff from under pressure. we view this as insane fantasy.

on the other hand, some of the “language” examples you describe above do not so clearly derive from easily recognized prior works as the previous examle. here, yes, it is a little less clear if this is, or should be, considered as a fair use, or even as a copyright infringement at all. the line is fuzzy, but this does not mean that there is not a line!

this is one of the problems with DRM solutions: DRM draws hard lines where fuzzy ones exist.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17198 Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:34:43 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17198 c’mon poptones. you can’t argue language in the context of copyright.

I’m not – I’m saying copyright needs to keep up with the language. Right now it’s divorced from it. We never before had instruments that could do what instruments today can do.

we all agree individual letters, words, and notes – the basics of language – can not be the subject of copyright ….no doubt miles davis played many of the same note as others, but when he did it, it sounded like they were being played for the first time – expression poptones – not content. that is what copyright protects.

Oh, really? Have you seen the Clint Eastwood produced film about Charlie Parker, Bird? It won an oscar for music (or sound production, I can never keep that straight) as it featured many compelling “live” performances where bird and diz and baker all shared the stage performing works that never actually existed- they were created, “virtually,” combining existing works and new works performed by a certain well known contemporary who is, shall we say, better known for his technical virtuosity than his innate creativity and “soul.” In other words, the works were mimicked so as to convey bird and diz and baker.

Helen kane, the “boop boop be doop” girl actually sued fleischer studios on the grounds they had stolen her fans. She lost the suit, and fleischer claimed in court any similarity was unintentional, but it’s been acknowledged by others involved in the creation of betty boop that kane was in fact an “inspiration” for the character.

Does this prove anything? Not really, but both are very good examples of previous precedents being set regarding “mimicking” of existing works. And what are recording devices, but very good mimicks? They are certainly not capturing the person’s actual voice – and hey, what if they are? if I can record Bob Goulet and be sued for infringement when I sell without his permission, what if I record him, use those “samples” to create a formant synthesis engine that can reproduce his voice at will saying anything I wan him to say with any inflection I can invent… does he still have rights to it?

This is exactly how many audio codecs ALREADY work: they don’t just chop the speech up into discrete bands or samples and blast it out the other end – they actually “sample” characteristics of the speaker’s speech, encode them, then recreate those characteristics on the other end – the sound is synthesized as much as it is “sampled.” So now does the choice of codec I use to sample an artist affect copyright? What if I alter it? How much do I have to alter it? Consider this humorous example of bush parodying himself at the mercy of a clever sound engineer – how much do I have to change it before it’s no longer the same? What if I sample two artists and combine the formant characteristics of both? The line is far from black and white, and copyright as it exists does not resolve the issue.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17197 Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:58:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17197 And criticizing a language simply because you don’t understand or speak it, I say to you with all respect, is not emblematic of an informed or open mind.

c’mon poptones. you can’t argue language in the context of copyright. we all agree individual letters, words, and notes – the basics of language – can not be the subject of copyright.

in the context of copyright, the only subject under discussion are specific original unique expressions of language; not the language itself.

no doubt miles davis played many of the same note as others, but when he did it, it sounded like they were being played for the first time – expression poptones – not content. that is what copyright protects.

vanilla ice riding on the success of queen’s “under pressure” is not language, nor is it mr. ice’s “freedom of speech” to express himself using brian may’s recognizeable riff.

and as this example shows, copyright is no hinder to making bad music. you just have to pay for the priviledge.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17196 Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:36:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17196 By the way: let me add that I find far more originality in oakenfold’s remixes than I have ever found in the countless string of “bar bands made big” like Hootie and the Blowfish and, as John Lydon called them, “Bruce Hornsby and the Fucking Range.”

Classical music has a language, and understanding this language deepens one’s understanding of the music – certain combinations of brass and percussion, woodwind and tringle, etc: these are all “patches” employed over and over by every composer. They had to be, because they were part of the language. This same fact applies to old school jazz, whether it was Charlie Parker interjecting “happy birthday” or Myles interjecting a line from “Rhapsody in Blue,” these quotations add meaning – humor; mourning; joy.

In synthesis the same truth applies: Keith Emerson might have been the first to add a new synthetic verb with his “Minotaur” patch – the swooshing, mournful durge that became the “hook” for the song Lucky Man.. There is not a synthesist worth her salt who does not know how to reproduce this patch, and it has been reused over and over in the decades since its invention. Techno and hip-hop again share this – there are certain patches and even instruments (TB303, Minimoog, the unmistakable and steroetypical screech of a Korg filter sweep that makes a piece instantly recognizable as “techno”) whose applications in various contexts have specific meanings – just like Dizzie adding a riff from “happy birthday” in the middle of “Someone to Watch Over Me.”

It’s language. And criticizing a language simply because you don’t understand or speak it, I say to you with all respect, is not emblematic of an informed or open mind.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17195 Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:01:59 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17195 one obvious benefit of copyright’s monopoly on copying and re-use is that if forces other artists to DO SOMETHING ELSE.

Actually, it doesn’t do that at all – it only ensures the artists who do get sampled get paid for their contribution to the new work. “Ice, Ice baby” would have been absolutely nothing without the hook it was based on, and those original contributors should be well paid – hell, they should have earned more from that remix than vanilla ice!

the african american Jazz and R&B crowd used to be the engine of musical culture, now they are sitting in the caboose.

Wow, that’s a phenomenally ignorant view to be coming from you, TBM. I’m not calling you a bigot, only pointing out that “hip hop” isn’t just about “black music” at all, and remixing definitely not just part of “black music.” Ever heard portishead? They use theremins and loops and all sorts of stuff, they are a PHENOMENAL presence onstage, and they are about as far from “R&B” as you can get. The turntable is every bit a musical instrument and it takes a good dj to really do something with it. I enjoy watching the portishead dj almost as much as the incredible vocalist, both are obviously quite talented.

The Propellorhead’s first album was pehenomenal, a collection of new works employing many jazz classics. It had a an original sound and introduced many who would otherwise have never heard of artists like Shirley Bassey to the “classics.” And techno, though you may not like it, is filled with samples and beats lifted from other artists – just like charlie parker and dizzie gillespie and myles davis lifted riffs from each other.

When they first arrived on the scene, the old school didn’t consider the theremin an instrument either – it was a novelty used for nothing more than eerie effect in bad science fiction and horror movies. Then Clara Rockmore arrived onstage and proved to everyone the theremin was an legitimate instrument that could be mastered with virtuosity. When synthesizers came on the scene the old school again balked, then Wendy Carlos, and later Stevie Wonder and Larry Fast and Joe Zawinul and Return to Forever proved the naysayers wrong yet again.

Have you listened to any Oakenfold? That might appear to be just a dj spinning one disk after another, but in fact there’s a LOT more going on – he’s spinning multiple disks, mixing a bass riff from one song under another, adding choruses and “hooks” from still others, with drum machines and sequencers and synths all being overlayed in real time onstage. It takes just as much virtuosity to do what he does as Keith Emerson displayed decades ago, hammering keyboards and swapping patchcords with the fury of a musical Steve Austin. Another DJ, a local legend from the area where I grew up (and hung out with other now legendary figures of house music) is now engaged in a deal to play his old shows on one of the satellite radio networks! He was known as electrifyin’ mojo, and his late night shows melded kraftwerk and parliment and third world and devo in a way no had ever heard before. Those shows were incredible, and they were “live” – no in an arena, but live and in realtime just the same.

Remixing and sampling very much is a valid art form – the old school of jazz did it all the time as well, just with different instruments. For example, I have a CD here that contains no less than six different versions of Charlie Parker performing his well known classic “Kim,” and in every one of them he at times “samples” himself and many of his contemporaries. I would encourage you to, rather than dismiss it outright, do a bit more research into this culture, and perhaps you might even find something there you enjoy. I dare say, that would certainly help you in discussions like this, as in this area you come across uncharacteristically uninformed – so much so it at times a causes pretty glaring weakness in your argument.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17194 Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:19:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17194 I think you are being far too critical of some of this simply based on you own tastes. Remixing is a valid art form – I personally love Shirley Bassey, and I discovered how much I love her through remixes and reuses of her work like the selection on the Propellorhead’s first album. It seems to me you don’t care for hip-hop works and so criticize at every turn the legitimacy in this reuse of works.

this is a valid criticism poptones – and partially true. we are of the opinion that one purpose copyright should serve is to spare society from the endless loop of hip-hop mediocrisy that has dominated pop “culture” for the past decade. one obvious benefit of copyright’s monopoly on copying and re-use is that if forces other artists to DO SOMETHING ELSE. the african american Jazz and R&B crowd used to be the engine of musical culture, now they are sitting in the caboose. it seems to us that the lax attitude toward re-mixing “a sure thing” is a huge contributor to this catharsis. no one is taking any risks.

poptones surely you (as we) have spent enough time in bars to know that competent bands play covers and good bands write original music. it is original artists with original thoughts and new ideas who advance culture. we are not ready sacrifice originality on the altar of the commons so people with (IOHO) LESS talent can make a living for themselves.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17193 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:25:05 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17193 Commonsmusic, I hope you’re still milling about here, I have a question and comment. Have you offered your work to magnatune? I have bought several works there and I “shop” there often so I know it works – I’ve also seen some of their offerings posted to newsgroups (in fact, it was a usenet download of “Shiva in Exile” that led to my very first purchase from them), so I know I’m not the only one listening. It seems to me if you’ve only sold ten CDs (magnatune sells “CDs” in the context of offering lossless downloads) then you simply have very bad marketing and need to hire the services of someone more skilled in that area.

I’m listening now to “Witness” and I like what I hear – and even “music that sucks” can find larger audiences than what you describe. Go pitch your stuff to magnatune; even half of a six dollar download is better than all of nothing.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17192 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:02:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17192 Oh, and TBM – I think you are being far too critical of some of this simply based on you own tastes. Remixing is a valid art form – I personally love Shirley Bassey, and I discovered how much I love her through remixes and reuses of her work like the selection on the Propellorhead’s first album. It seems to me you don’t care for hip-hop works and so criticize at every turn the legitimacy in this reuse of works.

I point this out only because ti seems to me the one detail where you and I differ on reuse of existing works. I think reuse of works should be attributed and only with permission of the creators of the original work (and no matter what song she’s singing, no one has Shirley Bassey’s voice -and you can’t really “learn” how to sound like Shirley Bassey no matter the lessons). This often weakens your very good arguments because it leaves you sounding like a grumpy neighbor sitting on his porch, screaming at the kids walking by to “turn down that damn music…”

This isn’t an attack on you, only an observation. I liek reading your comments, and I say these things only to make you aware of them so that you might make your points in even more convincing fashion. If you don’t even “:get” the art then few are going to care about your criticisms of the system that leads ot its creation.

Peter, regarding Harvey Danger – you have, on their website, written permission from the creator of the work to download and redistribute to friends. Note they are not saying you may remix the work without permission, or post it to p2p networks (that’s not “friends” that is “everyone”). It seems likely they would welcome the p2p redistribution as well, but since they don’t say this specifically I wouldn’t tread there. But there is no requirement for complicated licenses and such – all it takes for a copyright owner to remove themselves from a select bit of their exclusive rights is written permission – and there you have it.

This is the way it’s supposed to work. And I will point out there’s no reason an artist could not do this exact same thing even in a world of ubiquitous DRM.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17191 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:42:38 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17191 Peter, there is no way for ANY of that stuff outlined in the paper to work without DRM. Tracking files by filename alone is utterly stupid – online publishers already know this and went past that hurdle long ago. If you track everything by filename then all I have to do to create a “pirated” work is rename the damn thing and now none of the licensing tracking works – it’s become “unlicensed.” In order to actually, effectively track works you must WATERMARK them, and that’s a DRM technology.

Now, let me say right off I realize you didn’t actually advocate any of this, that you really only asked a question of another poster and provided a citation of the source. I was being deliberately confrontational to challenge you, to hopefully get you to state how YOU feel about the ideas in the paper, but I see the didn’t work so I still don’t know this, or even if you have actually read the whole paper and comprehended the technical requirements such a system would require. But given your previous statements here I simply cannot believe you would be endorsing this – and if you are endiorsing it, then why you would reject my ideas, which are eerily similar save for the intervention of governmental meddling.

The paper you linked also talks about the requirement for registration of creative works for them to be protected. So what happens when this all knowing, all seeing board decides certain works CANNOT be licensed? Dont say it can’t happen, it’s already happening in the spiral of censorship laws and weakening of the protections afforded professional journalists in this country.

And it talks at some length about a system wherein the creator of a derivative works “assigns” one of several licenses and acknowledges all the original works used in his remix, and doles out government subsidies to those creators based on the amount of their work appearing in yours, and the popularity of it. it talks about a system to track downloads as a measure of popularity so that the money can go to the people actually being downloaded.

In short, it talks about DRM being applied pervasively to online media – only rather than connect to Microsoft or Sun or even joeblow.com to get an authorization srting, you’re connecting to government servers.

So now the government not only has final say over what speech gets protection, in order to be protected the media must be watermarked and the media player must have a way of telling the official copyright servers that you have it – the govvernment now knows to the last IP address who is accessing any specific work.

Oh yeah, that just screams to me of Freedom – only in this case it’s freedom’s last dying gasp.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17190 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:39:36 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17190 I want free speech, not free beer.

we see you, Peter Rock, hiding behind free speech whilst you confiscate the property of others.

you don’t want free beer. Peter Rock, please. you propose nothing but free beer. it is free beer – and lots of it – that lubricates your free speech. without the ability to copy and distribute other people’s expressions at will, you apparently have nothing to say.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17189 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:21:01 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17189 Sarah,

On the Harvey Danger site, it says that the album can be downloaded and then says that “please share it with friends.” However, I don’t know if that is valid legally. Does it not have to be stated in the copyright and not just in an informal statement on a web-page? There is no mention of what the license is exactly. I appreciate them offering their album for no cost, but I’m not interested in getting music for no charge. I want free speech, not free beer.

Poptones says:

I cannot believe, Peter Rock, after all the exchanges we have had here, that you would now be here hawking that DRM system outlines in the paper you linked!

Could you please point out to me where it says in the paper that the music would be burdened by technology that hampers its use by the downloader? That is, I assume that when you say “DRM” you do not mean to use it as an umbrella term (which would confuse us), but mean DRM as a technical measure used to restrict the downloader from making copies of his/her file. Obviously that is the way the term “DRM” is being used in this discussion.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17188 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 06:32:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17188 The way artists work these days is that they do the artistry first and then demand payment from anyone who wants the art and even deriviations thereof.

while some artists and authors work this way, others sign agreements first and receive money to “do the artistry” up front. an advance goes a long way towards providing the circumstances under which “culture” can be created. what gives authors in particular the ability to negotiate an agreement is their copyright – and the fact that they can assign these rights to a publisher/distributor. copyright allows authors to exercise their liberty.

It’s a key part of our promotional campaign, along with radio and press promotion, live shows, and videos. It’s a bet that the resources of the Internet can make possible a new way for musicians to find their audience …; and forge a meaningful artistic career built on support from cooperative, not adversarial, relationships.”

but Sarah, copyright is still important to the band. the arctic monkeys weren’t considered successful until a few hundred thousand of they copyrighted CDs were sold. they didn’t make ALL their music available for download; they needed the protection of copyright to become a success – the internet was a sideshow.

it is a mistake to craft laws around a sideshow which destroy the business case for the main stage.

]]>
By: Robert Claypool http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17187 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:48:43 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17187 Why stop there?

Some lawyering and teaching are public utilities, so those are bad choices. Ever hear of the Prosecutor’s Office, or Public Schools. That is where we want the Lawyering and Teaching to be done without having to have to find clients that will pay them before doing any work. Otherwise, lawyers and teachers don’t work until AFTER someone comes and pays up.

The way artists work these days is that they do the artistry first and then demand payment from anyone who wants the art and even deriviations thereof. How far would lawyering and teaching get if lawyers and teachers had to pay the first person who came up with a teaching or courtroom technique everytime they used it?

]]>
By: Robert Claypool http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17186 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:36:55 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17186 Property isn’t theft. However, trying to force things that don’t have the features of physical property into structures that were designed to regulate physical property is.

Here are my analogies to help illustrate that fact:

Imagine that someone is planning to demolish their building. A demolition crew comes in unasked, and only does part of the job. Not only do they demand payment for the job they did, they demand payment from anyone that attempts to finish the job. The only difference between them and the record industry is that the words “You have Intellectual Property rights” is replaced by the words “You’re in violation of the RICO act”

The music industry is like a man who buys land upstream and caps the river, bottling and selling the water, and explaining that they charge the fee because they deserve to be paid for the job of capping the river and bottling the water. The people downstream are out money, fish and a place to swim.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17185 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:44:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17185 I cannot believe, Peter Rock, after all the exchanges we have had here, that you would now be here hawking that DRM system outlines in the paper you linked!

AI only browsed through it, but I read enough to read things like “unique file name that would allow tracking (naive in the absurd – so now I cannot rename a file?) calculation of stuipends owed individuals depending on “reuse” of their work, etc.

The only difference between the system I have been proposing and the one outlined in that paper you linked is liberty – I say leave people free to choose and the economic system will adapt on its own accord; the system in the paper denies this truth, instead creating a gigantic new government subsidy system to underwrite only published works that have been registered.

The more I hear from you peapl screaming about “freedom” the more I am convinced you want nothing of it. for years I said this isn’t about a ree ride, it’s about free speech – but to many of you it is apparent to me it really is just about having a free ride… or, in this example, a free ride on everyboyd else’s dime.

]]>
By: anonymous http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17184 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:52:33 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17184 “very much in favor of ‘arts as public utility’ model”

great idea!

why stop there?

how about, um, teaching, and lawyering, too?

]]>
By: Sarah http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17183 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:36:39 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17183 Oops! Sorry that posted multiple times, the blog gave me a “movable type error” so I assumed it hadn’t worked and tried it again…

]]>
By: Sarah http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17182 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:19:14 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17182 Peter Rock,

You beat me to the punch on bringing up Terry Fisher’s Promises to Keep. I’m very much in favor of his ‘arts as public utility’ model.

Also, there’s a band here in Seattle called Harvey Danger who released their most recent album, Little by Little… in it’s entirety for free through bittorrent or direct download, in addition to selling cds. From their explanation page:

“However, it’s important that people understand the free download concept isn’t a frivolous act. It’s a key part of our promotional campaign, along with radio and press promotion, live shows, and videos. It’s a bet that the resources of the Internet can make possible a new way for musicians to find their audience – and forge a meaningful artistic career built on support from cooperative, not adversarial, relationships.”

There is also an mp3 of our local NPR station interviewing one of the band members about the free distribution strategy. He’s in the second segment, which starts 24 minutes in.

~Sarah

]]>
By: Sarah http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17181 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:18:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17181 Peter Rock,

You beat me to the punch on bringing up Terry Fisher’s Promises to Keep. I’m very much in favor of his ‘arts as public utility’ model.
Also, there’s a band here in Seattle called Harvey Danger who released their most recent album, Little by Little… in it’s entirety for free through bittorrent or direct download, in addition to selling cds. From their explanation page:

“However, it’s important that people understand the free download concept isn’t a frivolous act. It’s a key part of our promotional campaign, along with radio and press promotion, live shows, and videos. It’s a bet that the resources of the Internet can make possible a new way for musicians to find their audience – and forge a meaningful artistic career built on support from cooperative, not adversarial, relationships.”

There is also an mp3 of our local NPR station interviewing one of the band members about the free distribution strategy. He is in the second segment, 24 minutes in.

~Sarah

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17180 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:53:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17180 Commons Music,

I was curious to know if you had read Promises to Keep by Terry Fisher? There was extensive blog talk here about it last year when Terry visited. I bought the book last summer and found it interesting and informative. Anyway, I was curious to know what you thought of Chapter 6 which is available on the web – An Alternative Compensation System.

I understand where you are coming from but cannot agree to using the law to prevent those who obtain content legally from making non-commercial copies to give to whomever they wish. That is not the kind of world we should be creating.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2006/04/who-owns-culture-at-one/#comment-17179 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:38:05 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/04/who_owns_culture_at_one.html#comment-17179 Commons Music says:

In fact, we’ve broken even on the CD costs (we’ve sold about ten)

Of Tryad’s album “Public Domain”? That’s unfortunate. That makes me 20% of your sales (I bought one for a friend of mine as well as for myself). However, I believe this can change. The current structure of the music industry (e.g. RIAA) doesn’t make for a good environment to promote the sales of CC-released music. I applaud you and others who release their music this way. However, just because the current structure is archaic, this should not be used as an excuse to prevent people who have legally obtained “content” to then allow others to make copies of that content non-commericially.

Yes, you can share the DVD copy (that’s covered well under first sale law), but what you’re talking about is making further copies beyond that.

Yes. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

Essentially, everyone gets to see the film without the filmmaker getting anything for it.

That’s a gargantuan jump.

What do you do for a living, Peter? I’m asking out of plain curiosity.

I’m a teacher.

]]>