I think once you publish something, you lose control of it. At worst, you inspire mockery and parody. At best, you become material for future work
At worst, you are ignored.
Mockery and parody are good things. It shows that you have made enough of an impact for someone to respond to your work. That's culture.
As a content creator, I can understand the desire for keeping a tight grip on control, since a few early teasers can greatly influence how later work is perceived, and lies spread so much faster than truth. But I believe there are right ways and wrong ways to do this.
Please forgive me the shameless self promotion that follows:
I'm working on such an art project myself right now, called the "DRM Box" which is an example where control over how the art is seen is extremely important.
The project is elaborate box that sits over a photograph and only lets you view the art after putting in money, promising to give you a minute of view time, but randomly crapping out some time after 30 seconds.
From this kind of a description, I probably sound like a greedy money-grubbing artzy douchebag, and it sounds like something you'd rather not see.
But if it is presented to you under a different tone, (something more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig31PXn_AfI ) the whole thing seems like a different project. Having some control over the presentation is important for the success or failure of what I'm doing.
The wrong way to control how I set this tone would be write nasty letters to everyone who took me seriously and wrote about this in a dry, humourless way.
The right way (I hope) is to release the tone-setting videos first, then present the objects once that foundation has been set.
In the case of software, if you want to keep it private, then keep it private, don't share it with others. And if someone else is able to replicate what you've done without seeing the source, and they can do this for free, then what you've done can't be all that special and you have no right to complain. And if people start using the other platform and ignoring yours, that's the penalty you pay for locking up culture.
"Okay, how do you know you're not ignoring "good content" and "following" what's actually crap if you just knew where the real good stuff was"
"the world just needs good filters, and we keep seeing more and more of those showing up every day. In the music world, there's a ton of new music being produced all the time -- and much of it isn't to my liking. But at the same time I feel like I'm living in renaissance of wonderful music, because I'm able to find fantastic new music all the time via a variety of tools: friends, blogs, Spotify, Turntable.fm, Pandora, and even a few cool (small) record labels who I follow because they release a ton of music I like."
Perhaps your anti-Mike filter is doing a good job of blocking out the relevant bits of his articles.
if you aren't happy with the filters that are currently out there (I'm not), make your own and people will likely flock to it.
I personally know several musicians who have been offered contracts and refused to sign, because they were smart enough to read the fine print, do the math, and realize how much better they have it doing it on their own.
If labels want to survive, they need to adapt and become publicity agents and filters. There is far more music out there than I could ever listen to in 10 life-times. How do I find the good stuff? Solve that, and you've got the future of music.
"...photographs are image records of external conditions, ergo they are NOT a creation of the photographer"
As a photographer, and more importantly, as a fan of photography, I can say that this claim is dead-wrong.
Spend 10 minutes looking through some random facebook photo albums, then look through a great photographer's portfolio and tell me there's no difference.
Composition, exposure, aperture, lens selection, colour balance, lighting, posing, etc. all have a significant effect on the final image. Each of these factors involves a creative decision that alters the scene in some way to create the photograph.
Saying a photograph is undeserving of protection is like saying a realistic painting is undeserving of protection, because like a photograph, realism also just an un-manipulated image.
It's not about consuming works in the public domain. It's about re-using them. Sure, I can listen to any song or watch any movie for free. But I can't include music from the 1950's in my own videos. I can't have old AM radio classics in the background of a scene. A character or poster in the background might lead to a legal headache if the estate is packed with douches.
My view: If they can steal from the public domain, we can steal from copyright owners guilt-free.
I think I might be just young enough that remembering a source rather than a detail has always seemed normal to me.
I've had older people criticise my outsourcing of memory and calculation abilities to electronic devices. They often say, "What if you are cut off from the internet? Then what will you do? What if your phone is dead? These are basic skills that everyone should have-just in case you find myself without your fancy toys"
I respond by asking them if they know how to start a fire by rubbing sticks together, or if they can make a spear head by banging rocks, or if they know how to chase down and hunt animals using hand tools. "No? but these are skills everyone should have, just in case you find yourself without your fancy toys!"
Why do people only take issue with how brand new technology affects us?
to paraphrase a quote from Douglas Adams:
Everything invented before you were born is normal. Everything invented before you are 30 is new and exciting.
Everything invented after you are 30 is unnatural and scary.