Comments on: Ok, so I’m wrong http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/ Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: 江 语涵 http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-47222 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 07:31:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-47222 Good idea, please continue to work hard!

read more

]]>
By: Egyptian http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-46192 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:00:07 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-46192 good man ty

]]>
By: Egyptian http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-46191 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:58:56 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-46191 oh my god long comment :( i can’t read all

]]>
By: Egyptian http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-46190 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:58:18 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-46190 So cute has good comments

]]>
By: Egyptian http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-46189 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:57:14 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-46189 Good comment :)

]]>
By: Egyptian http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-46188 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:48:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-46188 hehehehe nice comment of comment :D

]]>
By: Egypt http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-32698 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:31:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-32698 hehe nice comment !

]]>
By: Rob Myers http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15972 Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:27:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15972 It would be nice if we could separate those who create art to express themselves and those who do it for money.

I don’t think it would. Expressing yourself costs money. Preventing people from recouping or offsetting costs makes expressing yourself a financial drain, one that in some cases will prevent the creation of work. Art becomes a White Elephant Economy. NC licensing has this negative effect, unless you are Napster.

]]>
By: Hal Ade http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15971 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:03:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15971 I talked to an aquaintance of mine on the matter of copyright extension. Her view was that authors (composers included) often have families to support during their life, and that sometimes, financial returns don’t occur in any abundance until close to the death of the originator. She used as her argument, the author’s “starving children”, or if not starving, benefitting so little from their parent’s (parents’) work while the parent is living that they forgo ballet lessons, piano lessons, trips to ski resorts, including ski-lift services, which parents having handsome royalties from their authored works might have provided.

So to make up for these deprivations during the author’s life, to her, it is perfectly fair that the author’s offspring, grand-children, great-grand-children, first cousins once, second, and thrice removed, favourite aunts and uncles, and assorted buddies and their offspring should benefit for up to “X” years after the originator’s passing.

As you may tell by my attempt at cynicism, I do not completely hold to that view. I do feel that the author’s nuclear family should receive fair and reasonable post-mortem royalties if they have been deprived of good family incomes during the author’s life, because the parent has been busy authoring, and receiving “tick-all” for his/her authoring efforts.

Other than that, if the author is dead, it is, under current electronic engineering technology, not possible to pay him/her royalties which he/she can use in his/her world. That, of course, may change with further advances in Quantum Electrodynamics Engineering for purposes of royalties transmission to the “spirit” world(s), in which case, the definition of “life” for copyright purposes, would become a moot point. We’re then left with the heirs beyond the author’s nuclear family, who, often with no psycho/spiritual bond with the author and his/her works, want their license/royalties money from the public anyway.

By the way, does the Copyright Extension Act (the Sonny Bono Act) extend works for hire to life plus 95 years, or the greater of life plus 70, or a total of 95 years?

Hal Ade
Gatineau, QC

]]>
By: JiggleBilly http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15970 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:14:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15970 It would be nice if we could separate those who create art to express themselves and those who do it for money. I have two questions for nobody in particular:

If you create art to express yourself, why should you get paid for how you feel?

If you create art to make money, are you creating art or manufacturing a product?

]]>
By: Bitsy http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15969 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:50:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15969 I see “John Constable” listed– presumably they mean the John Constable the classical musician. So perhaps he is in favor of retroactive copyright extension, given that most of what he plays is by long-dead composers. Maybe he feels grateful and wants to “give back”?

]]>
By: Suw Charman http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15968 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:40:26 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15968 I have just blogged this:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/12/12/i-see-dead-people/

And put scans of the ad up on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/suw/sets/72157594416637345/

If anyone spots more dead people, please do add notes or comments to Flickr.

]]>
By: Ombilic Des Limbes http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15967 Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:38:09 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15967 “the simple reply is that retroactive extension is, and can only be, a forward looking incentive. extending the copyright term increases the net present value of all copyrighted work thus providing an increased incentive for the creation of new and original works.”

Nonsense. The work that benefits from retroactive extension has already been created. That’s what “retroactive extension” means. Therefore, there’s no point to retroactive extension for past work: it’s not going to function as an incentive. You could argue that extending copyright on new works being produced would be an incentive for artists—though I also find that idea extremely tenuous.

]]>
By: Erik http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15966 Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:49:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15966 The dead artists aside, could we get confirmation that any of the *living* artists on the list actually have signed it, or if it’s really just their record companies talking?

]]>
By: ACS http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15965 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:12:14 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15965 I hate to be the argumentative one here but the proposition that copyright is about creative incentives, and you can’t create incentives retrospectively has a single flaw to it being one of fairness. It would be fine if copyright incentives were statitc but you find your self in a situation where a party that created a work five years ago would not recieve the same benefits as a person that creates a work today. On the other hand I can see the manifest problem with retrospective enlargement of rights. Of course, there is no easy road between these two governing factors but I am yet to see a reason why works of the past shouldnt recieve the same rights as the works of today – does not each copyright statute say that it replaces the one before it?? If so then a retrospective term extension would have to be achieved by introducing amendments to those statutes limiting the grant of rights to prior works – which they dont. If you have a problem with this then write to your congressman.

]]>
By: tacet http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15964 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:19:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15964 Remember, copyright was originally setup with the intention of being a short term monopoly to give the rights holder a fair chance to make money. This of course was back in the day of paper-based publishing, well before the advent of TV and internet. When it took years to produce and distribute materials globally. Nowadays production time is minimal, and speed of distribution is as long as it takes to get your message onto the right blogs, or get featured on iTunes. It seems to me the term of the monopoly is now far too long, not too short, in the modern environment.

True “art” isn’t about money, so it’s wrong to assume all artists will continue to choose to be part of the circus.

Sadly there’s no opposition to the undead signing petitions, or is there? “Music is everybody’s possession. It’s only publishers who think that people own it.” – John Lennon

]]>
By: john Foster http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15963 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:13:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15963 unDead people have been voting for years. So it’s perfectly okay that the dead would want copyright extensions too.

]]>
By: Wesley Parish http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15962 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:59:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15962 It just occurred to me that this is a radically new interpretation of “grass-roots”. It must be the first time that these organizations and companies have had grass roots support.

What sort of taxes does one pay if one’s primary employment is pushing up daisies? Or is that tax-deductable? If one is dead and decomposing music as a hobby, does that get taxed? Is there entertainment tax on dead musicians decomposing music? Or is it tax-exempt?

All these sorts of questions must be answered. Enquiring minds want to know!

]]>
By: Wesley Parish http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15961 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 05:42:39 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15961 Funny. I thought the only thing dead musicians were capable of was decomposing. Apparently, according to this ad, there are people out there who’ll buy decompositions from these musicians … takes all kinds, takes one to know one!

And talk about incentives! I was advised to be careful about taking out life insurance, because the incentives it might create could be wrong. These companies are creating an incentive for them to murder their musicians, once they have made a hit. It’s crying out for Tarantino to do something typically Tarantinoish. Or Clive Barker …

]]>
By: Rick http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15960 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:03:23 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15960 Um, the add was “placed on behalf of more than 3,500 record companies and 40,000 performers.” As far as I can tell from the various articles Google returned, there’s no claim the artists signed anything.

So, the ad could have meant they supported copyright extension before they died, or that their estate supports it. That is, I go around saying “Copyrights expire too soon, we should extend them!”, then I die, and someone takes out an add saying “Rick supported copyright extension.”

I don’t agree with what they’re doing, it’s misleading. But that’s not the same as “dead authors [signing] a petition.” Don’t let people dismiss your articles by using the same fuzzy logic as those you oppose.

]]>
By: Dave http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15959 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:46:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15959 Devil’s advocate: what if extending term of protection for existing works is itself creating incentives for new works? Imagine I buy new works only because everything is locked up- as if when I’m given the choice of paying for Elvis/Salinger/whatever or something new, I choose something new- but if the old works were public domain, I’d support nothing new.

Honestly, I think there may be some merit to this position, and that it needs to be handled to win the argument that you can’t create incentives by looking backward.

]]>
By: sabik http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15958 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:09:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15958 “Braaaains”? Hardly!

It’s all about the gaaaains of keeping music in chaaaains.

The downside, of course, is that everyone else abstaaaains, ahem, abstains from creating for fear of being sued by zombies. Basically, in purely utilitarian terms, it comes down to the balance of creation encouraged (by economic returns) and discouraged (by the costs of copyright compliance).

η

]]>
By: Jennifer http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15957 Sat, 09 Dec 2006 23:45:27 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15957 Forever copyright isn’t incentive. Incentive is needing to eat, and knowing you can ‘t milk one work forever is the biggest incentive there is..like the saying goes, it’s the hungry cat that hunts.

]]>
By: Expodanza http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15956 Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:38:49 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15956 Well I don’t see why that seems so odd to you. I mean, if Gunpei Yokoi can create his ‘puzzling masterpeice’ nine years after his death, everyone else should be capable of at least signing a name.

]]>
By: Kemalo http://www.lessig.org/2006/12/ok-so-im-wrong/#comment-15955 Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:32:57 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2006/12/ok_so_im_wrong.html#comment-15955 To me, the arguments about giving an extension will give incentive to create new work is complete and utter rubbish, all it does is give the rights owners (very rarely is this held by the actual artist) an extension to their monopoly.

The vast majority of artists motivation comes from the love of music and the enjoyment of what they do, the money is not and never was a motivating factor. If Copyright lasted only 6 weeks, we would still have had artists like Elvis, Jimi Hendrix and Bob Marley.
The only difference copyright makes is that a successful artist will earn enough to enable them to concentrate full time on their music rather than having to hold down another job to pay the bills and create music in their spare time.
If someone cannot make enough money from a monopoly that lasts 50 years then surely they need to look at their own financial managment skills rather than looking toward legislation to bail them out.

‘Copyright is a monopoly and monopolies are evil. To remunerate an author we must succumb to the evil but for not a moment longer than is absolutely necessary’
(Lord) Thomas Babingto Macauley. in 1841.

]]>