[p2p-research] Arguments against generalizing copyright-less strategies for musicians, was: arguments against applying open/free to other content

Thu Feb 21 04:06:56 CET 2008

I agree Sam, moving it to a more collective place preserves the value of the
discussion for people who may be interested in it later, and who don't know
about this private discussion,

Michel

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marco,
>
> I think we might actually make some progress if we move this discussion to
> the p2pfoundation wiki.
>
> This way, instead of point-counter-point arguing with each other, we might
> instead come to better understanding of multiple perspectives, and others
> reading this won't have to sift through our email threads to get the key
> points (I admit I am just as guilty of making the thread dense as anyone).
>
> I will try to summarize it here
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Arguments_against_copyrigthless_creative_output
>
> and you can jump in and edit the page and correct me wherever you see that
> I have it wrong.
>
> I don't think any of us are actually really arguing against your central
> core point, which is that completely tossing aside any declaration of usage
> by others is potentially a bad idea. I agree with this, and as you mention,
> creative commons, and other licenses are based around the default of total
> copyright, with nuanced permissions granted by the creator. Indeed, common
> law in many countries often assumes this, too.
>
> So, that is what I read as your central point, that we should not
> necassarily turn that on it's head, but that maybe we should instead educate
> people, give them literacies about how they can work with existing
> conditions, instead of inverting them by default, invert them per person's
> choice.
>
> If that is the gist of what you are saying, it makes sense to me. I think
> we agree on this point, and it seems to one of your core points. Please
> correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Beyond that, I will have to address your blog posts point by point when I
> have time, and I think that I can do it better in a wiki page that we can
> both edit, than in an email thread, so if you agree I'll create one page on
> p2p wiki that tries to faithfully summarize your arguments (unless there
> already is one) then I will create another that critiques your arguments,
> with citations that can back up what I am asserting.
>
> Hopefully you'll see this a bit more fair than the indirect ciriticism
> that has taken place on this list so far (and maybe more useful).
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:13 PM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings, everybody, and thanks to Michel for the interest in my
> > thoughts and the invitation to discuss them here. I had said I'd wait
> > a week to answer to finish other work, but the discussion is just too
> > interesting to wait.
> >
> > Some general points before I answer in detail to some of your comments:
> >
> > a) I have changed the subject because I don't think the one Michel
> >   used to present my article reflects its main point. I'm not saying
> >   that open/free doesn't apply to other content. I'm saying that the
> >   arguments usually brought to the table to say that copyright should
> >   be abolished altogether seem much less solid or general than
> >   advertised
> >
> > b) I'd suggest to please read again http://digifreedom.net/node/58 and
> >   http://digifreedom.net/node/59 before answering to the comments
> >   which follow.
> >
> > c) Before answering, I've read all the messages in this thread so far,
> >   and I already knew all or almost all the counter-arguments. With
> >   all respect, I'm not really interested in knowing and investigating
> >   more about music and musicians. Not now, at least, and I'll dare to
> >   suggest that focusing there may not be the most effective strategy
> >   to fix copyright problems. I've published some thoughts about
> >   _copyright_, not about music and musicians. I have just been
> >   forced, you may say, to include music and musicians in the piece
> >   because that's just what I've often found repeated without enough
> >   analysis.
> >
> >   Several things I've written may be summed up as "whatever the right
> >   thing to do about copyright is, maybe the idea that you can
> >   generalize to all creative activities what has been proved to work
> >   quite well for musicians is a myth, or at least it needs much more
> >   investigation to be accepted".
> >
> >   Copyright or its abolition impact much more than music. Fixing this
> >   problem in a way that works wonders for musicians may be...
> >   suboptimal, much like fixing the problems created by proprietary
> >   software or software patents in a way and inside a mental framework
> >   (the GNU/FSF way and framework) made to order on the brains and
> >   interests of enthusiast programmers, that is of a tiny, terribly
> >   tiny minority of all computer users of today. I already knew that
> >   musicians can live well (if not better), without ever doing the
> >   "all rights reserved" thing, thank you. What I ask in my first
> >   article is, "are you really sure this is equally true for all
> >   creative activities, or that abolishing copyright because musicians
> >   would be better off without it is really necessary and effective"?
> >
> > d) I've seen the word "artist" thrown around a lot in this thread, and
> >   I've done the same myself. However, unless explicitly noted, I use
> >   the terms artists, author, creator as perfect synonyms in this
> >   context. I suggest it is crucial to keep in minds all these
> >   meanings.
> >
> >   Because, again, copyright impacts on, or covers, much more than
> >   music: music, pictures, source code, novels, technical manuals,
> >   lyrics, text-books, movies, stock market analyses and so on. Trying
> >   to separate all these activities, by finding a separate solution
> >   for each of them, is both intrinsically wrong and practically
> >   impossible. So you must look for a solution which is feasible and
> >   works decently for all the involved activities, from real peaks of
> >   artistic inspiration to very prosaic and boring texts.
> >
> > This said, I'll now answer some specific points of your messages:
> >
> > Samuel wrote:
> >
> > > Most our argument seems to boil down to getting rid of copyright,
> > > vs. keeping it, and "myths" that you think people have or perceive
> > > about these issues.
> >
> > Most of my first article is simply "whatever should happen to
> > copyright, the "facts" that people usually quote as natural truth
> > against it are much weaker and/or less general than they seem". And
> > it's not a perception of mine at all: that article is little more than
> > a reformatting of things that any number of people have *actually*
> > said to me as "facts", often accepting them without any thinking, and
> > of my answers. One of the reasons I wrote that piece is that I had had
> > to repeat those things so often that I thought I may save some time in
> > the future by just handing a link and the number of the answer.
> >
> > > I think you should do some talking to artists, and musicians who
> > > make a living from art/music, you may be surprised about their
> > > attitudes.
> >
> > see point c) above
> >
> > > I think you are wrong that saying that "side jobs don't even count
> > > in discussing these issues". Maybe they do not count for you, but
> > > they sure as hell count for me. There is absolutely no reason not to
> > > consider *anyone* who is making money, and decisions about making
> > > money as an artist/musician/creative, into the equation.
> >
> > there is probably a misunderstanding here, sorry. I meant "side jobs
> > of the artist", as is "let's ignore the assumption that creative work
> > should just happen as a part time activity, while the artist's food
> > and shelter are paid by a non-creative job of the artist". I didn't
> > refer at all to other jobs of other people around the artists, working
> > for or thanks to the artist himself.
> >
> > > The ways that you discuss are not the only ways to survive as an
> > > artist.
> >
> > Did I said they are the only ones? Where? I said let's not exclude any
> > single way, not even those coming from a (reformed, see second
> > article!!!)  copyright.
> >
> > > the times when most independent artists are able to charge multiple
> > > license charges from one piece of work are often far less than the
> > > money they make from producing unique works for individual paying
> > > clients.
> >
> > Pray elaborate on how this is really applicable for all kind of
> > artists (cfr what I wrote in Myth 3) and above all on how maintaining
> > a reformed copyright would _prevent_ this (which again was the
> > central, if not only, point of my article)
> >
> > > in real practice, and in the emerging media ecology, there are more
> > > ways to make a living from creative works than just encircling them
> > > with copyright and demanding that any and all users pay you.
> >
> > Please point to where I _deny_ this fact altogether. I say something
> > different: a) it is not true that this is equally effective and enough
> > for all kind of creative works; b) there is no reason and no harm to
> > not let the two (all) models coexist, not if copyright is reformed as
> > I suggest in my second article.
> >
> > Stan wrote:
> >
> > > 2. You say "But if this is the _only_ way to survive for an artist,
> > > if an artist cannot be just an artist full time, with as little
> > > powerful patrons and intermediaries as possible... it isn't a good
> > > thing for society as a whole, we haven't progressed all that much
> > > since the middle ages"
> > >
> > > This assumes the artists are all of sufficient value to society to
> > > earn a livelihood.
> >
> > I believe all this and similar discussions are *only* about artists
> > who indeed are or could be of sufficient value to society. Why should
> > we care about the others? They'd disappear very soon anyway, whatever
> > the model is, and would disappear much sooner or almost never appear
> > by reforming copyright as I suggest, something which would make the
> > current corporate behemots who push such artists today completely
> > unattractive to investors.
> >
> > >  1. Distribution of information--nonrival goods--is continually
> > >   approaching zero cost.
> >
> > So what? Production of quality information, that is presence and
> > constant, continuous, focused use of talent, is not going to be worth
> > less or approach zero needed time anytime before we all turn into pure
> > energy. If I'm a loser and create something worthless, I'll soon be
> > forced to change activity and it doesn't matter which model I tried or
> > had available. Let's just ignore that scenario.
> >
> > But if I'm really good and it takes me twelve months full time to
> > produce the best novel ever written or the clearest text book since
> > the invention of the alphabet, is it really wrong if I (have the law
> > structures in place to) demand a contribution IF I WANT and/or NEED
> > IT, always in the reformed copyright context I suggest, directly by
> > every end user of my work and nobody else, to cover at least my cost
> > of living for those twelve months?
> >
> > Does having this possibility forbids me to go with Creative Commons
> > for that or future or previous works or with donations, patrons,
> > whatever? Do you really HAVE to abolish the most direct, simpler and
> > fairest way to cover my costs (because that's what copyright would
> > grant in my scenario, not some faceless stock holders) only because
> > there are other ways, which yes, are probably much more effective...
> > for musicians?  Is it really NECESSARY??
> >
> > Ciao,
> >        Marco Fioretti
> >
> > --
> > Your own civil rights and the quality of your own life heavily depend on
> > how software is used *around* you:               http://digifreedom.net/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2presearch mailing list
> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sam Rose
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> AIM: Str9960
> Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samrose
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.com/services
> http://socialsynergy.typepad.com
>
> Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:
> OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPage
> http://p2pfoundation.net
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> http://www.cooperationcommons.com
> http://barcampbank.org
> http://communitywiki.org
> http://openfarmtech.org
> Information Filtering:
> http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarks
> http://del.icio.us/srose
> http://twitter.com/SamRose
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080221/f8c64e4f/attachment-0001.html 