The Fight To Save Creativity

from the fighting-the-good-fight dept

I’m not sure why this is online now, but someone who prefers to remain anonymous just sent me a link to a NY Times Magazine article that’s supposed to come out on Sunday explaining the position of those who are afraid of the direction copyright is headed in and are fighting to change the way copyright works. If you’re a regular reader of this site, you’ll (of course) recognize a lot of what we talk about here on a regular basis. While I don’t agree with everything they say about copyright issues and worry a bit about how they paint it as a “movement”, it’s still good to see this type of positive press coverage of many of the issues.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Fight To Save Creativity”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Adrian Anders (user link) says:

An alliance of views?

The article does miss a point about copyright viewpoints, that there can be a middle ground between “Copyright Optimists” and “Copyright Pessimists” the two views described in “Copyright’s Highway” (A good read, Mike you should check it out). For instance, in return for keeping copyrighted works out of public domain longer, copyright owners could give up some of the control they have on their works. Say, if a DJ was to sample a recording by an artist, as long as the copyright owner is paid a decent amount for that usage (a percentage of the profit for the derivative work based on the total length of sampled content divided by the total length of the derivative work), it is fair and legal. Another example would be if a copyright owner were to set a price for individual copies of a work to be sold universally by whatever online distribution company wished to do so. A distribution company would sell copies of works for a price they set, but had to pay the copyright owner for each and every copy sold on the net at the amount they charge. No copyright owner could ever say NO to an online company, and in return people have less incentive to commit piracy as they would now have a reliable system which promises no legal holdups and no bitchy copyright owners trying to game the system for profit. It’s about streamlining, let’s get the lawyers and the negotiations out of the picture, and let’s have the market for creative works on the internet work like a real marketplace. I think most people file share because it is the easiest way to get the exact works they need on the internet, with the fewest hassles (I?m not the only one who says to oneself, ?ok in order to get all these artists, I have to invest in 4 or 5 different technologies and companies, and even then some songs I can?t even get, bah! I?ll just go on good old K and get them for free.?) If copyright owners want piracy to go away, they have to give up some rights to the users. They would still have the right to profit, but not to protect.


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...