[p2p-research] Fwd: [fcforum] Fw: iPad DRM is a dangerous step backward. Sign the petition!

[Michel Bauwens]

HI Marco,

I can understand your position, and I am very sympathetic to the core
feeling that one needs to be able to feed's one family. Now there is a whole
polarity between sharing for one's own, sharing with friends, and sharing
with a larger global community. My profound conviction is that if one person
acquires any digital content, he is free to use and share, and that in no
way sharing should be criminalized. But even with piracy, in a country like
Thailand, it is simply immoral to enforce IP law, which destroys the
livelyhood of hundreds thousands of people in the informal economy.

I think these are contradicitons we can live with, and that your
expectations to be paid, and to rely on copyright for this, is legitimate.

A different issue is the ethical issue of attribution. What do we do with
ethical breaches of that nature. If you see somebody reproducing your work,
in a 'commercialized environment' and not attributing or paying you, how
would want the law to react?

Michel

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:59 AM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 12:29:59 PM -0600, Kevin Carson (
> free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > > "Reproducing" as in "making a copy" for themselve or "reproducing" as
> > >  in copying the same content somewhere else online? There is quite a
> > >  difference.
> >
> > Definitely a difference, but not insofar as it affects my principle.
> > There should be no coercive legal prohibition against reproduction in
> > either case.
>
> Too bad, because it's a very, very very practical difference. The
> second kind of "reproduction" damages people who publish stuff freely
> available online but partially or exclusively do it for profit
> (banners, requests for donations...)
>
> Since when I've started writing, I've got lots of "thanks, I learned a
> lot from your explanations, they saved me a lot of time" for stuff I
> had ONLY written because I needed the money promised by some editor
> (who did it only because he could get at least some limited rights on
> that stuff or because I hope that it will produce money over time with
> banners and similar. almost all that stuff also went (almost)
> immediately online, where was and still is available for free to
> whoever needs it. Yeah, sure "somebody else would have written the
> same thing sooner or later, etc etc" but why should you limit such an
> extra stimulus when it does benefit others and does not create any
> measurable damage?
>
> In the same years, I've also found online, several times, integral
> copies of both of those articles and of stuff I had directly released
> under some CC license, on websites that had littered them with much
> more advertising that you'd find (WHEN you'd find it) at the original
> link. Integral copies (normally without my name or a link to the
> original article) made days, weeks, maximum 2 months after original
> publication, put on websites made only of thousands of pieces equally
> copied and equally overfilled with banners.
>
> So don't talk of cultural damage, artificial scarcity to extract rent
> or anything like that. The content already was and is available for
> free, full version. Those people did not create derived works,
> translations, increase access to knowledge or anything of the
> sort. They did not do any work at all, except setting up the server
> and some robot to copy the articles, and they only did for their own
> personal profit. They only diminished the amount of money generated by
> the total, ACTUALLY HAPPENING web traffic (not projections!!!) that
> went to who had worked to create that content.
>
> To stress the correction I made in another message after your fully
> justified critique, please note the "ACTUALLY HAPPENING" part. I am
> not saying that I am or should be entitled to money only because I
> write something. I am only saying that if what I write is judged by
> others good enough to read it and this generates money, that money
> should go to me, not others. Until copyright expires, of course, and
> remember that I *am* for greatly reducing it. That's all the
> "guarantee" I need to produce some of the things I write. Other works,
> yes, I just write and publish them under CC, but only after I've paid
> the bills.
>
> As for those webmasters... people like those should be kicked from
> here to the moon. And the first who should want to kick them should be
> the advocates of open, accessible knowledge. THey destroy the
> incentive for others to publish stuff online accessible to everybody.
>
> I am very happy that there is a copyright law that gives holders the
> right to demand and obtain that such leeches take the copies
> offline. I or the editors I work(ed) for have already used several
> times this protection to have those copies removed, and I will
> continue to do it when needed.
>
> --
> Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
> software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100206/413808da/attachment.html>