Lessig

Hilary,

An example for you - and really just the tip of the iceberg.

From a recent interview in Paste Magazine (http://www.pastemagazine.com/action/article?article_id=1816) Beck says �The only difference is that it�s pretty much impossible to clear samples now. We had to stay away from samples as much as possible. The ones that we did use were just absolutely integral to the feeling or rhythm of the song. But, back then, it was basically me writing chord changes and melodies and stuff, and then endless records being scratched and little sounds coming off the turntable. Now it�s prohibitively difficult and expensive to justify your one weird little horn blare that happens for half of a second one time in a song and makes you give away 70 percent of the song and $50,000,� he laughs. �That�s where sampling has gone, and that�s why hip-hop sounds the way it does now.�

Pretty much says it all.

If an artist with Beck's level of success in the past, and likely future successes, can't express himself via sampling and remixing in the ways he would creatively like to, we are indeed seeing works being stifled and limited.

Outside of music a very similar problem exists in print publication - where the long common practice of quotes and citations is increasingly being prohibited by publishers. If even academic works are being stifled in fairly clear fair use situations, again works are being stifled.

In essense the demand by many owners of content that not only do they own it nearly in perpetuity (continually extending the life of copyrights meaning that the public domain stops somewhere in the 1920's), as well as the ever more restrictive environment for anyone interested in using works of others as components of their work makes it ever smaller the domains where people can comfortably and legally operate.

Indeed I wonder if great works of are such as the collages of Matisse or others would be allowed in today's environment - or would the artist and his (or her) representatives have to "clear" each image and item they reuse and repurpose - each little corner of paper.... (not to mention would Warhol be able to do what he did with Cambell Soup Cans?)

I'm a technologist and writer. When I create I want to be able to create in the ways that my muse dictates - however if, say I wanted to write a story which mentions brand names, which quotes from other publications, which uses real places - I may have resistance from publishers. And when it, if it is, is tried to be made into another medium - TV or Film for example, each of those brands would (in today's environment) only be used if that placement were paid for. (it is a source of personal annoyance and pain when in a "reality" show there are no real brands just fake ones, a few paid placements, and lots of blurred areas).

Sometime soon I think there will have to be a backlash to this blurring of reality.

Real people operate in a world of brands - in a world of content from many sources - the music and tv clips in the background of many people's private films of reality means that those same clips cannot (today) be shown in a movie theater or put on TV without great expense due to the enforcement of many different "rightsholders".

(see the example that Lessig cites frequently of the man who made a film that won awards at Cannes for a cost of about $400 but would cost 1000x to clear all the rights if he wanted to show it here in the US. That is stifling creativity.)

Shannon

If an artist with Beck’s level of success in the past, and likely future successes, can’t express himself via sampling and remixing in the ways he would creatively like to, we are indeed seeing works being stifled and limited.

If I go to a brick and mortar store and they want me to pay twenty dollars for a pair of sneakers I can buy at wal-mart for three bucks, should the store owner be compelled to sell them to me cheaper because I can go elsewhere? Wouldn't the store owner, given time and dwindling market share, either change his prices or simply find another line of work? Who are we doing a favor by not protecting the rights of that store owner to be unresasonable? Isn't the entire point of the U.S. Constitution to protect the individual most especially when that individual is being ureasonable in expressing an unpopular or socially offensive ideal?

Now, the internet itself is either free or it isn't. It may not be easy to find everything but that's a problem with the technology, not the politics. If you know where to look you can still find Linus' banned "linuxchix" supermodels sporting their tux tattoos; you can find remixes of everything from Abbey Road to Dark Side Of The Moon to Linda's Vorona, and you can find more porn (of every illicit sort) than you could "enjoy" in dozen lifetimes - all of it "free via download." And if all that's not enough you can install linux and the very much "banned" decss utility that will allow you to rip encrypted DVDs, and if you need to covertly distribute your illicit content you can wrap it up in 512 bit encryption and "hide" it right in the public square... even if you're part of a terrorist cell operating in Syria or Lybia or one of those other nations marked "illegal for export."

So how can you say expression is being "stifled?" The only thing that appears to be "stifled" in all this is the ability of entities (individuals and corporations) to generate income for themselves by co-opting, through force, the works of others.

If artists (or their agents) demand unreasonable licensing fees, so what? Go to Magnatune and you can find entire songs to license for just a few hundred bucks. Most likely every single artist there would love the exposure that would come from being sampled in a Beck song and it might even help "make" a couple of them. In fact, someone as sharp as Beck shoul;d be able to figure out a way to actually buy some free publicity from something like that - make a point of how the samples all came from aspiring new artists who offer their music directly to their audience via this completely legal and free music download service...

Conversely, what's to stop Beck from making these tracks exactly as he sees fit and simply giving them away via the internet? All it would take is to "leak" a "bootleg cd" to a single anonymous friend and there would be no stopping that expression from seeing the light of day.

Could it be that Beck doesn't want to give away his work any more than those other artists he wants to "sample?"

Shannon Clark writes: If an artist with Beck’s level of success in the past, and likely future successes, can’t express himself via sampling and remixing in the ways he would creatively like to, we are indeed seeing works being stifled and limited.

for every artist like beck that is "stifled" from copying the success of others, a new, original, fresh talent is encouraged to fill the void. contrary to the views of two turn tables and a microphone, it would seem to us that hip hop mediocrity is a result of too many covers, too many re-mixes, and too much derivative inspiration.

I’m a technologist and writer. When I create I want to be able to create in the ways that my muse dictates - however if, say I wanted to write a story which mentions brand names, which quotes from other publications, which uses real places - I may have resistance from publishers.

this seems like overblown hyperbole Shannon Clark. in addition to the mild constraints imposed by copyright and trademark, the writer's muse is also "stifled" by laws against libel and slander, accuracy, public taste, and the publisher's word count. the enormous volume of written material published every year would indicate that most writers live within all of these constraints quite comfortably.

don't make this appear harder than it is. we three blind mice, for example, wanted to use a quote from james gleick in a book we are writing. one sentence. we wrote to mr. gleick via his publisher and got a quick reply via e-mail: "sure, go ahead. thanks for asking." we got a similar reply from a dozen or so other copyright owners. notably, Shannon Clark, not one refused when asked.

poptones writes: Conversely, what’s to stop Beck from making these tracks exactly as he sees fit and simply giving them away via the internet? All it would take is to “leak” a “bootleg cd” to a single anonymous friend and there would be no stopping that expression from seeing the light of day.

poptones you seem to be arguing from both sides of the fence. on one hand you deride the fact that the internet is used for illegal distribution stifling economic development, and on the other you argue that since the internet can be used for illegal distribution no "artists" can be stifled.

the problem, poptones, is that having it both ways creates exactly the problems that both sides are complaining about.

ms. rosen, the problem is not so much "works" that are stifled, the tension arises between innovation in technology and innovation in content. strong copyright and content control provides the economic platform for investment in content - but may put brakes on technological development.
weak copyright and no control on content may undermine the economic incentives for investment in content, but opens to door to advances in technology for how content is distributed, delivered, and enjoyed.

there are good and valid arguments on both sides. this is what creates the tension and this is where the discussion needs to be focused. bogus arguments that copyright stifles creativity are simply the technologist's nose under the tent.

Okay, I've placed this question to numerous people, and while it's more to do with DRM than with copyright protection per se, I find it relevant, and perhaps you, Ms. Rosen, will be able to answer it:

Let’s say Fox News puts DRM (in some form or another) on all its broadcasts.

Now, let’s say someone wanted to come along and do a documentary like Outfoxed. So they spend hours recording the channel to DVDs trying to find whatever perceived bias they can discover. But when they go to rip those recordings to a format to edit in, they find it’s DRM’d.

Now, putting aside the fair use arguments (I think Outfoxed was clearly fair use, for the record), and putting aside the politics of the movie, what is this documentary team to do?

Let’s say there exists a rip for it, and they can disable the DRM, and they edit and release the movie. Ignoring the bad PR they’d get from it, Fox News sues the filmmakers.

For what? Copyright infringement? No, not that. They know they’d likely lose to a fair use argument in court, which would set a bad precedent. Instead, they sue under the DMCA, saying the filmmakers couldn’t possibly have edited the footage without cracking their DRM, and thus are in violation of anti-circumvention aspects of the law. Fox News could lose in court, under the (damn near nonexistant) fair use clause of the DMCA, but the fact that documentarians would have to jump through that hoop is unacceptable.

--------------

As for stifling creation, I'd like to point everyone to this article, where, amongst other things, a documentary filmmaker cleared a cell phone ring--for SIX SECONDS--of the Rocky theme song, and the sync rights were some spectacular amount to clear (originally offered at $10,000).

I, personally, would have claimed fair use there, but that indemnity insurance is a bitch.

Again, I just don't see the validity in even trying to separate the two. I have my "paying jobs" and I have my expressions; with few exceptions (like when I took a phone job in a call center explicitly with the intent of being payed by the corporate culture while employing their contact base, resources and my apparent "official" credential to lead my clients toward free software solutions) do I otherwise expect my critiques of la mechanique to be supported economically by that system.

I am one of those "remixers" myself, and so I have little sympathy for those (many of whom I very much doubt have spent much time at all actually "creating" rather than consuming) who claim "the man and his system is stifling creative expression." I have created music videos assembled entirely from appropriated art - videos that would likely never stand a chance of appearing on any mainstream outlet; I "remix" images and have even spent a couple of days carefully uncensoring very hard core anime porn simply for the "expression" of sharing with the world a "Free" version of something some part of our society considers so atrocious it did not otherwise deserve to be seen. I have created parodies of commercial art incorporating all sorts of trademarked symbols into contexts which the owners would probably have very serious objection - and not once in all this has someone approached me to tell me how I couldn't do it. I created my work and posted it to usenet and from there it was truly free to live or die as it was able.

In none of these cases have I ever felt the least bit put upon by "the man" because I am not seeking payment for my work or even attribution. Not even my closest friends know of much of it. It is enough reward to see my work shared again and again knowing others find some merit in my expression. Are these not the ideals claimed by those in the "free culture movement?"

Copyright does not prevent the creation of an expression. "Chilling effects" are for those who lack initiative or courage; copyright can only prevent the commercial distribution of a given work after it has been created. There is paying work and there is libre work. Anonymous publication is now easier and more effective than anyone even in my High School "class of '80" could ever have imagined. The only barrier left in all this is the ego of the creator... and, thankfully, technology still can't do anything about that.

The biggest complaint I have with "ownership" culture is the length of ownership. Why should some recording company have copyright to works created by artists who died years ago? Take Hank Williams for example. Why can't I use one of his songs in any way I please? The man's been dead for over fifty years and his songs are iconic of 1950's America. In my thinking, whatever justification there was for the monopolization of his music has long been realized and it is past time for his works to enter the public domain so that society may more greatly benifit from it. His successors in interest have long done so, and done so quite hansomely. They no longer deserve a monopoly on his work.

Hank Williams is just one example of thousands. Furthermore, his music may be approaching the end of its usefulness to society. There is some danger that, by the time the copyright finally runs out, there will no longer be any interest at all in the works. An opportunity for others to profit from the work may be lost because the copyright holders refuse to release the works to the public domain before they are required to do so.

The whole point of copyright, as everyone knows, is to grant a limited monopoly on works to the creators of those works so that the creators may see benefits that the work brings. The idea is that the public benifit is the greater good, but to realize it, the creator must have some incentive to create. Once the creator (or his designates) has had sufficient opportunity to realize benifits, the work should revert to the public domain so that the public may in turn benifit. That is easily understood and unreproachable. The issue at hand is the length of copyright. (And fair use, as in the case of sampling, but others have commented on that.)

IMO, the original term of copyright (14 years) should be sufficient to capitalize on any given work. Others disagree. Fine. I am open to compromise, but the current term (life plus 70 years) is so long that it may as well be in perpetuity. Furthermore, as works approach the end of their copyright, copyright holders tend to press for ever longer extensions to the copyright act, so copyright may in fact be limitless so long as the rights holders continue to win legislative battles. I don't see any reason why they will not continue to be able to do so.

Et tu, Mickey Mouse?

The tension is one between:

1. Public access to information and knowledge in a public sphere.

2. Private ownership of information and knowledge.

No matter how much you try to square them these basic liberal principles are in direct contradiction to each other. And whilst property was based on physical items at least there could be trade offs that many societies would accept (e.g. political equality but economic inequality).

However when information and knowledge are privatised, the very preconditions of a critical public required within a democratic liberal society are denied to that public. This is the tension that is emerging the ability, to access, use and reuse information and knowledge (whether written, immaterial, music or art).

At some point our societies will have to make a momentuous decision about what kind of society we want. Corporate controlled knowledge and a corresponding weakening of democratic society or democratic control of knowledge and a corresponding weakening of corporate control.

That is the fundamental aspect of the knowledge economy, creative economy, information society - call it what you will. But the decision we are taking today for short-term corporate desire for profits (and of course influenced by organisations like the RIAA) will have effects on the democratic nature of our childrens and children's children.

The stifling is not just of creativity, it is and will be of democracy and freedom of expression itself.

How much copyright ownership -- as measured in time -- would satisfy you, Hilary Rosen, personally?

If you have never "seen an environement that suffers from an excess of “ownership.”", you've obviously never set foot inside an archive or historical research library. You've obviously never had to struggle to identify or find the copyright owner in respect of a work from fifty, sixty, or seventy years ago. You've never run up against a brick wall, as I did, in 1990, trying to find the copyright ownership of a work by an author who had died only four years before.

Wipe the whatever out of your eyes.

The fact is, it is impossible to gage how much creativity is being stifled by the current legal environment.

Imagine a world with no restrictions whatsoever. Where any studio could make there own Simpsons, there own Star Trek, or whatever, without any fear of legal reprocusions. I imagine we would see some great stuff, and lots of cool mixing of culture. Star Trek vs Star Wars, Simpsons vs Family guy, except with a big budget.

Imagine a world, where people could make movies, and video games, and use any music they want in the background.

I think in such a world, we would see unpresedented levels of creativity. Japanese fan fiction is one example. But it is limited to comic book format. What if large production studious were also free to rip each others work. Then we would see some real interesting things.

Now the argument is, what insentive is there for people to make Simpsons and Star Trek, and write music, if there is no gauruntee of a return on investment.

This view demonstrates a lack of respect for artists, and consumers as human beings. It assumes, in typical capitalistic fashion, that everyone is in it for themselves. But this is clearly not the case. Humans are social animals, who need to love and need to be loved. We don't just want to feed ourselves. We want to feed our children, and our friends. As long as this is true, all great artists will be suitably compinsated for the efforts they put into there creative work.

Once we collectivly realize this, culture will finally be free.

Imagine, if rather than Give the Record Studio 20$ for distruvuting a CD, of which Beck gets 20 cents, I could just give Beck the 20$ directly. Beck would be a lot riher this way.

Alternativly, record stores could print there own CD's, and labels, and make deals with the artists directly to split the cost 50/50.

There are so many ways to organize things.

All the law does is stiffle innovations, that are long over due.

rodander, go read the article before you make yourself look dumber. They cleared the Rocky cell phone ring out of fear, not because they wanted to use it. It was a cell phone ring, completely unplanned. The entire point of the article is that it stifles the ability of artists to create documentaries if they have to constantly be on the lookout not to record music that happens to be playing in the background of whatever they're shooting, or the logo printed on a truck that happens to drive by.

rodander:

Perhaps you should have read the article. The filmmaker had no control over the ringtone that happened to be on that person's cell phone. They have to be cautious of billboards, signage, and everything else. They were not using the Rocky theme song on the phone to "convey" anything.

To wit, I'm a documentarian myself, and I have this interview with a patient who is being denied pain medication because of aspects of the war on drugs. She started crying during the segment, and the whole thing was horrible to watch.

The interview happened to take place during a party where they were raising funds to help a doctor that had been unfairly prosecuted by the DEA and Attorney General, so there was a DJ there. Despite the precautions I took of using a localized microphone with limited range, going as distant from the party as I could get without trespassing on other properties, and despite the fact that I tried to dull the background noise in post, there's still a very recognizable and famous song thumping in the background. Now, I know that trying to clear it would be a nightmare, and seeing as how my film is working by the skin of its teeth as it is, I could never afford it. Never ever, ever.

So, what am I to do? Lose some of the most powerful footage I have because the latest pop song is faintly present in the background? No, I refuse to do that. This is clearly a case of fair use, as with that cell phone ring, and I'm not going to sacrifice integrity and important footage for something I had no control over.

I did not read the linked article. My apologies for assuming that the documentary was using the ringtone for its expressive content, and to the extent my post was based on that assumption, I retract. (An indication in the post that the use was accidental would have been germane, but still my mistake is my own fault).

I'll give myself a (feeble) out by at least noting that I said "we didn't know enough about fair use to make a call". And I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS THAT MISUSE AND OVEREXTEND THEIR RIGHTS. Loud enough? I'm with you there, believe me.

But I'll stick by the point about Beck and my question about sampling. If artists are precluded from lifting (not accidentally, but intentionally, OK????) expressive works of others without permission, I will maintain the question about how much creativity is being stifled anyway.

rodander:

Thanks for admitting the mistake. Always good to have someone admit when they are in error. No harm done.

T Edwards:

While I haven't commented on this, I'll make the point now: I don't believe corporations are, in and of themselves, at fault here. More to the point, I believe that the law is what has failed here. A big part of that failing is the result of:

1. Idiot politicians.
2. Powerful lobbying groups.
3. Idiot politicians.

And did I mention idiot politicians?

It's the overly-strong protectionism that the law is granting here that is mostly to blame, not the idea of copyright, the corporations, or anyone else per se. That the law is being influenced so freely based on unusually bad survey samples or curious logical leaps (which The Economist called them on), then we just keep running into a brick wall over and over again.

P.S.

T Edwards:

The sordid saga of the MLK speech is actually a fascinating one. See, he specifically registered copyright for the speech so that it couldn't be used otherwise, and so that his estate could get money from reuse of it.

You can read more about it, and the battle CBS had with the estate, right here.

I actually find the whole thing sort of funny, since he was well known for having lifted portions of other writings and speeches and simply dropped it into his own (some would call that "plagiarism"). Also "borrowing" parts of other speeches and writings for the famous speech itself.

Heh.

The more rights we grant to copyright holders, the more rights are taken away from the owners of the real property.

There is no 'real" any more. A man in korea was killed over ownership of a "sword" that exists only in an online role playing game. The sword may not be physically tangible but as "information" it has real value.

Please.. stop living in the past. You are a copyright holder; I am a copyright holder. The only thing separating us from those other rights holders is the value of the information we possess.

How much is your medical history worth? Your credit card statement? Your Amazon wish list? These are things few of us think about because we are new to "publishing" and the old school rights holders have had centuries to learn the game.

We all are rights holders and we need to start thinking like it. The same laws that protect Hollywood movies protect the information you created that exists on your hard drive. Do you have kids? A life partner? Do you have pictures of them? How about videos of your kids? These are all things protected by copyright. You may not think that means anything, but what if the footage you shot of your kid playing in the bathtub showed up one day in alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child-sex? I suspect you would then be most grateful for those "evil" DMCA protections that allowed you to quickly force its removal from hosting nntp servers.

There is no "us" and "them." If you do not like what Hollywood has to offer then stop sending them your money. But realize that demanding they be given less rights also means you are demanding less rights for yourself.

Hilary-
I just want to say thanks for opening yourself up on a venue like this. All of us have a lot to learn from people outside of the circle that we surround ourselves with.

further to poptones excellent post regarding the DRM spec, our observation was based on the fact that AFAWK human eyes and ears are - and will always be - analog devices (until the government installs a DRM chip into everyone's brains.)

seriously, even if evil MSFT doesn't provide an analog jack you can still record the sound coming from the loudspeakers or the video displayed on the screen using analog or digital recording equipment. can't rip that CD? pull out the reel to reel and microphone. can'r rip that DVD, set up the videocam. yes, the quality will not be the same, but that's the point. it will be good enough for fair use.

from the examples provided, or more accurately not provided, it does not seem as though the impact of an "excess of ownership" on artistic creativity is severe or frankly even remarkable. the rocky ring signal? please. record over it. surely nokia would be more than happy to license you to use their familar ring signal.

ms. rosen, to our open eyes the "excessive ownership" arguments on the impact of creativity appear to be little more than windmills in don quixote's mind.

the objective of the creative commons crowd, it would seem, is not to encourage creativity but to get at that original content - unmodified, unadultered, and free as in no cost. you will note that any solution which does not enable this is rejected by the commons-ists as an unwarranted intrusion of human rights or personal liberty. this, despite the fact that the united nation's univeral declaration of human rights declares that: "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

The three blind mice identify the problem exactly.

My perception of the "pure" Creative Commons premise is that: if artists permit free sharing of their works with other artists, creativity is fostered and the overall body of artistic output is greatly improved, relative to the proprietary model that we currently live in. This is an interesting premise, and it would be fascinating to see if the premise holds. I look forward to seeing the CC artistic output, and the creativity that results.

Unfortunately, though, issues raised by the "creative commons crowd" do often devolve into complaints about not being able to use/copy/derive from/distribute copies of existing copyrighted works, or use hardware products beyond the restrictions agreed to when purchased. Beck complaining about not being able to lift other artists' work. People using property rights talk (it's my copy, why can't I do what I want with it) to defeat others' property rights -- sometimes with utopian "Imagine" moral lecturing, and more often by demonizing the copyright owners (as though unworthy of ownership).

So it is neither surprising nor inaccurate that the three blind question the motives of the "crowd". I certainly do. And, assuming that the "pure" premise is indeed operative for the Creative Commons, the whining about not being able to use works by those that aren't playing under CC drains the credibility out of the CC.

"Social justice means everything for everybody, immediately, and for free." -- German graffitti

To answer Hillary's question and to get off the DRM tangent I started (sorry). Here are my thoughts.

Your statement was:
"I just haven’t seen an environ7ement that suffers from an excess of “ownership.” i would love some specific examples in the hopes that you will open my eyes."

I see there is a similarity between the negative incentives that occur from piracy to that of excess of ownership. Let me explain.

Money is not the only reason people do things. Humans are creative beings and will create. It is just part of being human. So single behaviors are not necessarily influenced by money. One could argue though, that repetitive behaviors can be influenced by money.

Artists that create a work may be incentivised to create more works if they are able to make some money from their original work. Pretty obvious so far, I am sure.

So it is easy to see that piracy is a negative incentive to the artist. Piracy reduces the amount of money they can make directly from their work so they are less incentivised to create more works. If piracy is so rampant that the artist begins to actually lose money on every work he puts out, he will stop producing creative works and also encourage others to not waist their time creating works of art.

Excess ownership can have a similar affect on the creative process. If all intellectual property is permission based, it becomes increasingly difficult to create artistic works due to the amount of time and money it will take to get permission to use other's intellectual property. Let's consider the documentary film case. If one creates a documentary film in which music, corporate logos and other things that are performed and displayed every where in every day life must be cleared for use in the documentary, this become very time consuming and expensive. The more effort and money the documentary film maker must expend to clear all of this IP, will reduce the amount of money they can make directly from their work so they are less incentivised to create more works. If excess of ownership is so rampant that the artist begins to actually lose money on every work he puts out, he will stop producing creative works and also encourage others to not waist their time creating works of art.

I hope this provided a decent example and a clearer picture on the topic

So it is neither surprising nor inaccurate that the three blind question the motives of the “crowd”. I certainly do. And, assuming that the “pure” premise is indeed operative for the Creative Commons, the whining about not being able to use works by those that aren’t playing under CC drains the credibility out of the CC

Exactly. There are several sites that deliver CC content by the bucket loads and yet I have never heard another person here hype them or even mention that they use their content. Honestly, I am beginning to think I am the only person frequenting these discussions who actually embraces the cc content. Most of the posts here seem to rhapsodize about how great things would be "if only" meanwhile the artists actually participating in that vision go on in relative obscurity.

Just like this...

You’ll just have to trust me when I say that if iTunes was selling MP3s instead of locked files I would have bought them, but I assure you, it’s true

You can buy DRM free MP3s from other sites... so how many have you bought? More to the point, how many tracks have you bought from Magnatune? Better still, how many tracks have you even listened to at Magnatune?

The content on itunes (and Magnatune) has already been created. So your refusal to buy itunes DRM laden packages doesn't in any way mean there are "fewer creative works" in the world. Most of the artists at itunes don't need your dollars anyway because they are already signed to some label. A great many artists at Magnatune, however, aren't signed to any real label and could actually benefit from you walking that walk you're trying to talk.

Heck, do you do p2p? Newsgroups? where do you get your music? Do you have any of the Magnatune artists in your "shared" folder? Madonna doesn't want to be there and she doesn't need the help anyway, but Johan would likely appreciate the exposure. So would these guys.

It's always easier to make excuses and blame someone else for your lack of creative fulfillment than to actually do the work. Creation is hard. Maybe we need to get nike to do some creative commons ads...

friends. in this one thread different people have mentioned copyrights, patents, and in the case of the olympics, trademarks. although these, along with trade secrets, can be lumped together under the umbrella of intellectual property rights (IPRs), they are each vastly different from one another.

please, it is hard enough to disagree when we are all speaking about copyright, but it becomes impossible when other IPRs are thrown into the soup.

Peter Rock, your motives can only be judged by the positions you advocate and the company you keep. certainly, most of the CC crowd does not promote, or engage in piracy. our apologies if we throw in the snarky comment now and again. like cheese, it is hard for us mice to resist. professor lessig has again and again said how he does not support or condone piracy. but - if you will pardon the analogy - taking the position that you are against theft while arguing that locks are immoral is at best a strange form of advocacy. to our way of thinking, it is instructive, and somewhat troubling, that the CC crowd opposes any solution that does not also permit piracy. you will perhaps forgive us, if we fail to understand your true motives.

yeah! you people better stop confusing us! and be nice to hilary! cuz we meeses are better'n you'uns!

I should hope that the underlying illegality (child pornography, privacy breach) of that act would, of itself, be sufficient to give rise to that remedy.

So, you think an image of a child playing in the bathtub is pornographic? There are Billions of people in the world who would find that view, if not quite perverse at the very least silly.

On the other hand, if you are going to charge someone with claims of "child poronography" because they are redistributing imagery you created, what have you then said of yourself? Who is going to raise you kid when the local DA is able to locate 12 of your peers who share this perverse aversion to nudity?

Thanks for your response, Aaron. I think we've fairly discussed topics 1) and 2), so there is no need to further burden the readers with more on that.

But I am baffled on how you think the law "doesn't allow" people to license their photos to you, because the *law* is not clear!?! I don't understand this. Sounds to me like it is the CC license that isn't clear enough for you. (This is what you mention in your earlier comment about having to go back to make sure you and the photographers understand it the same.) If that's the case, then you ought to have a chat with the CC, rather than dump copyright law so you can copy and redistribute others' works without any hassle.

Didn't mean to impugn your creativity -- as a matter of fact, I thought I threw it a bone by referring to perhaps there being creativity in the selection. But if the point is to foster creativity, it is wiser to err on the side of protecting original (non-derivative) works at the expense of derivative works (esp. compilations). Otherwise, the Long Tail will be wagging the Dog.

(I believe) the labels are doing more harm than good... If I’m correct in my assessment that the current environment means that people are spending less money on music than they would if things weren’t DRMed, then yes… it is stifeling creativity.

Have you listened to yourself? The use of DRM is not a legislative mandate; the publishers using DRM on itunes are the very same publishers you are supporting when you buy those CDs from artists you hear on the radio or on MTV.

You are directly contributing to the problem you describe. Why do you support with your dollars the people who you feel are taking to much from our society? Why do you even lend them your time?

If Magnatune doesn’t carry the same songs, then it’s not really a substitute service for iTunes, and you can’t compare them as such. I’m more than happy to buy MP3s if they’re available. One way to create competition would be to set compulsory licenses, but I’m no expert on how that would work.

So you admit that you simply refuse to partake of, or even fairly audition, the creative works from people who actually do walk that walk you only talk! Your solution to all this is instead to legislate that I be obliged to subsidize your economic allegiance to the system even you admit is part of the problem we (who actually do walk the path of libre) seek to correct?

It would seem that pop music addiction has deafened your ears to the shrill cries of your own hypocrisy.

To Three Blind Mice:

How long must you be so blind? You are just selective
on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights picking
one that supports your position and ignoring the
other sections that do not support your position.

Open your eyes! Read Article 19 and Article 27(1).
Authors and artists simply do not have the right to
suppress Articles 19 and 27(1).

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

Thanks, Aaron. I'll leave you and poptones to duke out the other topics.

If you solve the license issues with CC, then your fair use problem goes away. The fair use doctrine cert