> Copyright laws restrict free speech? May be so, but what other way is
there
> to protect artists from having other scumbag less-talented artists (also
> known as "the rap industry") steal their work and make money from it? If
you
> are worried about getting busted for using other peoples art, make up your
> own god-damn art. Drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa and then standing
> back and talking crap about it's meaning is not art. get a job.
Actually, there are lots of instances where very talented, deserving artists
have had work shamelessly appropriated by 'big dogs' (my examples are
primarily in the recording industry), and the struggling artists can't do a
bloody thing no matter what the laws are due tot he fact that they don't
have the cash to get a lawyer that's of the calibre of the industry
barrister.
Once again, copyright laws aren't aimed at the individual artist. They were
created to protect PUBLISHERS, not the artist. Therefore issuse such as
Napster aren't about Metallica, they;re about Sony, A&M, the other
companies, and the RIAA.
I just keep getting stunned at artists without the kind of capital backing
like Max, Kinkaide, etc, who actually think they have a chance under
copyright law, and that it is for THEM. Of course from a legal standpoint
they do, but the financial component is untenable in most cases.
Copyright: not for you.
-
Type: discussion
Comments
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Patrick Lichty wrote:
> Once again, copyright laws aren't aimed at the individual artist. They were
> created to protect PUBLISHERS, not the artist.
This is simply not true. That capital distorts laws is a completely
different issue. That you live in a society in which capital is
elevated by law–and that everything is driven by 'capital' mostly–
is not 'reflective' of the laws (which are far from ideal).
Try looking around harder–there are plenty of musicians who do it,
have their own publishing houses and make the law work for them.
They're not many–true–but that's because most people prefer
to cry about how 'wrong' the universe is–instead of 'do the work'–
and intelligently so. Nevermind that 'winning' is 'politically
incorrect'. Just play the martyr-hero–maybe you'll get elevated
to somebody-does-things-for-me-status one day–then you won't
have to 'worry' about shit–which is what most people get into 'art'
for anyways.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
All due respect David and all, copyright is not the problem.
At this point, I have world of exxie content that copylawyers can't touch.
The problem is marketing and distribution.
The problem is dumb smart people! And that ain't hardly no problem at all.
Hell that's biscuits and gravy.
Zim
++
>From: Neal <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: Neal <[email protected]>
>CC: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 01:13:01 -0500
>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Quoting Patrick Lichty <[email protected]>:
> I just keep getting stunned at artists without the kind of capital backing
> like Max, Kinkaide, etc, who actually think they have a chance under
> copyright law, and that it is for THEM. Of course from a legal standpoint
> they do, but the financial component is untenable in most cases.
>
While in general you are correct, most individual cannot compete with the money
needed to fight law suits, there are organization and even individuals who will
fund such fights. I know there is a copyright organization for Artists, just
can't remember the name. I know of individual lawyers who are trying to create
a law firm where anybody can go to to protect intellectual property rights
(whether they have funds or not).
Additionally, lack of funds can sometimes be replaced with charisma,
dedication, effort, etc that attract something more powerful than money, which
is people to a cause.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(See Note 1)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>[Powers of Congress}
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>Section. 8.</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>Patrick Lichty stated:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>Once again, copyright laws aren't aimed at the individual artist. They were
created to protect PUBLISHERS, not the artist.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Just a reminder.
<p>Neal: [email protected]</html>
i am not a lawyer but I think the problem has to do with the way the courts
recognize images/symbols/etc … i think they see them as PROPERTY instead
of LANGUAGE …
if the courts recognize images as a [language] then … logic would dictate
that any device used to prevent the use of images/symbols would be against
the 1st Amendment (right to free speech) … and thus illegal
essentially, what i would like to do is bring a classaction lawsuit against
some of these DRM companies to force this issue … to get the courts to
re-evaluate how images are defined in the legal system.
david goldschmidt
—– Original Message —–
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
<[email protected]>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Patrick Lichty" <[email protected]>; "unbehagen.com" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
What do you want to do to stop the DRM? Create competing companies with
open
technologies or create laws to prevent such technologies or educate/convert
existing companies to the dangers of DRM? Once we decide the most likely
option, then we must go about seeing it happen
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
Take the survey they are all talking about…
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
212.255.4527
www.electrichands.com
[email protected]
Quoting David Goldschmidt <[email protected]>:
> my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern,
and
> there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest
concern).
> what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
> companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use
of
> anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that
will
> do this. there will be no code to break … no encryption to defeat, etc.
> … your computer simply won't let you use it.
>
> for those that don't think that images [are a language] then i'm sure you
> don't care. but i happen to believe that images are a language and any
> device, chip, etc that prevents someone from expressing themselves is
> illegal.
>
> i don't have a problem with copyright laws that stop someone from
> selling/profiting from the work others have created … but if an activist
> wants to challenge societal paradigms by using the symbols/icons [against]
> the institutions that created them then they should be able to do that.
>
> david goldschmidt
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
> <[email protected]>
> To: "Patrick Lichty" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
>
>
> Quoting Patrick Lichty <[email protected]>:
>
> > I just keep getting stunned at artists without the kind of capital
backing
> > like Max, Kinkaide, etc, who actually think they have a chance under
> > copyright law, and that it is for THEM. Of course from a legal
standpoint
> > they do, but the financial component is untenable in most cases.
> >
>
> While in general you are correct, most individual cannot compete with the
> money
> needed to fight law suits, there are organization and even individuals who
> will
> fund such fights. I know there is a copyright organization for Artists,
> just
> can't remember the name. I know of individual lawyers who are trying to
> create
> a law firm where anybody can go to to protect intellectual property rights
> (whether they have funds or not).
>
> Additionally, lack of funds can sometimes be replaced with charisma,
> dedication, effort, etc that attract something more powerful than money,
> which
> is people to a cause.
>
> –
> Joseph Franklyn McElroy
> Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
> Take the survey they are all talking about…
> http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
> Electric Hands, Inc
> 212.255.4527
> www.electrichands.com
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
hi neal-
i am not looking for a work-around to this problem … i am not just looking
for a way to beat/subvert the system … i'm saying that the system is wrong
… and i think there is a way to change it.
FAIR USE laws won't mean a thing to the millions of people using PCs (like
90% of the population?) … because they won't even be able to rip/grab the
images.
david goldschmidt
—– Original Message —–
From: "Neal" <[email protected]>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
>
> ———-
> >From: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
> >Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 11:53 PM
> >
> >my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern,
and
> >there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest
concern).
> >what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
> >companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use
of
> >anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that
will
> >do this. there will be no code to break … no encryption to defeat,
etc.
> >… your computer simply won't let you use it.
>
> If the Intel platform is rendered useless to you, there's always Sparc and
> PowerPC.
>
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
> FAIR USE laws won't mean a thing to the millions of people using PCs (like
> 90% of the population?) … because they won't even be able to rip/grab the
> images.
And why should every moron be able to 'rip' images?
Especially ones who think that images are language?
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
> my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern, and
> there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest concern).
> what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
> companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use of
> anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that will
> do this. there will be no code to break … no encryption to defeat, etc.
> … your computer simply won't let you use it.
You are asking for it. Give the dog access and it inevitably pees,
so you have to take the toy away.
> for those that don't think that images [are a language] then i'm sure you
> don't care.
It's not a matter of thinking: they aren't.
> but i happen to believe that images are a language and any
> device, chip, etc that prevents someone from expressing themselves is
> illegal.
You can believe whatever you please: it's not going to make it any more
true. I believe you have a ferret stuck in your pants and that's why
you're bothered about copyright.
> but if an activist
> wants to challenge societal paradigms by using the symbols/icons [against]
> the institutions that created them then they should be able to do that.
No, they shouldn't. The image does not belong to them.
There are OTHEr ways of actively addressing issues you have
problems with.
So Buy a Mac
on 9/17/02 2:01 PM, David Goldschmidt at [email protected] wrote:
> hi neal-
>
> i am not looking for a work-around to this problem … i am not just looking
> for a way to beat/subvert the system … i'm saying that the system is wrong
> …. and i think there is a way to change it.
>
> FAIR USE laws won't mean a thing to the millions of people using PCs (like
> 90% of the population?) … because they won't even be able to rip/grab the
> images.
>
> david goldschmidt
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Neal" <[email protected]>
> To: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:12 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
>
>
>>
>> ———-
>>> From: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 11:53 PM
>>>
>>> my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern,
> and
>>> there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest
> concern).
>>> what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
>>> companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use
> of
>>> anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that
> will
>>> do this. there will be no code to break … no encryption to defeat,
> etc.
>>> … your computer simply won't let you use it.
>>
>> If the Intel platform is rendered useless to you, there's always Sparc and
>> PowerPC.
>>
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern, and
there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest concern).
what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use of
anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that will
do this. there will be no code to break … no encryption to defeat, etc.
… your computer simply won't let you use it.
for those that don't think that images [are a language] then i'm sure you
don't care. but i happen to believe that images are a language and any
device, chip, etc that prevents someone from expressing themselves is
illegal.
i don't have a problem with copyright laws that stop someone from
selling/profiting from the work others have created … but if an activist
wants to challenge societal paradigms by using the symbols/icons [against]
the institutions that created them then they should be able to do that.
david goldschmidt
—– Original Message —–
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
<[email protected]>
To: "Patrick Lichty" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
Quoting Patrick Lichty <[email protected]>:
> I just keep getting stunned at artists without the kind of capital backing
> like Max, Kinkaide, etc, who actually think they have a chance under
> copyright law, and that it is for THEM. Of course from a legal standpoint
> they do, but the financial component is untenable in most cases.
>
While in general you are correct, most individual cannot compete with the
money
needed to fight law suits, there are organization and even individuals who
will
fund such fights. I know there is a copyright organization for Artists,
just
can't remember the name. I know of individual lawyers who are trying to
create
a law firm where anybody can go to to protect intellectual property rights
(whether they have funds or not).
Additionally, lack of funds can sometimes be replaced with charisma,
dedication, effort, etc that attract something more powerful than money,
which
is people to a cause.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
Take the survey they are all talking about…
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
212.255.4527
www.electrichands.com
[email protected]
+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
What do you want to do to stop the DRM? Create competing companies with open
technologies or create laws to prevent such technologies or educate/convert
existing companies to the dangers of DRM? Once we decide the most likely
option, then we must go about seeing it happen
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
I will query someone who knows these laws better than myself.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
And intellectual property laws are pretty misunderstood (or purposely ignored),
such that they are easily abrigated or worked around by commerse laws.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
All
Whilst not an expert on copyright by any means - it might be worthwhile
bearing in mind that copyright law and its interpretation does vary
across the diverse social and hisorical practices of the different
states we live within. For example with regard to copyright and author's
rights in France you could look at Bernard Edelman's Ownership of the
Image (RKP) which is relevant related to the digital media because his
focus is on photography and cinematic production. The key phrase
appears to be 'authors rights' which within english law do not appear to
exist. In french law 'Authors rights is a specific class of proprty
based upon a reference to principle….' (founded on a Kantian
understanding of legal jurisprudence). Whereas the English copyright act
of 1956 refers to 'the exclusive right … to do and authorise other
persons to do certain acts…' i could quote on but the principle is not
related to authors rights but to to the copyright work of the proprieter
in respect of its publications in newspapers or digital media etc…
I don't have time to precise the argument here but rather am hinting at
the differences we would find in our different traditions. I'm not sure
that authorial rights areb much of an improvement either.
regards
steve