We openly encourage anyone to copy and redistribute our content. Believe it or not, it can be done!

Copyright law needs reform but it still needs to be in place.

There’s no deductive logical argument to support government-granted monopolies: including copyright, patents, and trademarks.

“Stimulating” creativity is as ridiculous as the “economic stimulus”, because it ignores opportunity costs. There’s in fact no way to measure that so-called “intellectual property” does more harm than good, and the burden of proof is on those to defend why it should exist, not vice-versa.

And honestly, if an artist doesn’t want you to use their work, you have no right to bully them into giving up their work for your personal enjoyment.

They’re not “giving up” anything. You cannot possess an idea or set of information. It isn’t “yours” to control.

All logical and economic arguments aside, I believe this is the fundamental emotional error. People have attachment to the works they create. They just feel like it’s theirs to control who and how it gets used.

Perhaps this is a twist on the endowment effect.

But the reality remains, it’s not that everyone is “entitled” to use “your” work; but that you’re not “entitled” to dictate how it’s used once you’ve published it. The genie’s out of the bottle and there’s nothing you can do about it, ala the Streisand effect.

Never mind that the whole of the Internet wouldn’t work if people actually enforced the automatic copyright claims. Every time you view a website you’ve made a copy (*infringement!*), and every node along the way has also made copies (*infringement!*), and there’s another copy that’s been projected onto your retinas, and so on. Every email that you send is replicated hundreds of times on its way to its destination.

Copyright infringement is de rigueur on the Internet.
People used to tacitly understand that until the AOLers started immigrating online.

And so people further understand where I am coming from: I think the catch-22 Nina is caught in is very unfair. The recordings are copyright free, but then use those “free” performances into your work and suddenly you’re subject to a claim on performance money? That is indeed bullshit. Especially in the case of a recording that is from the 1920s.

So retain copyright, but amend the laws to make it fairer.

But let’s not pretend that if things were different, she’d be selling this film and profiting from the same copyright issues she’s complaining of.

One more thing before I leave this thread behind… The other big thing I get from what you say is that if an artist wants to preserve their income, they HAVE to institute invasive and egregious DRM, if it’s a digital work, or a similar copy restriction if it’s not. As long as nobody can freely and easily copy a work, it’s worth paying for. Food for thought…

All DRM will be circumvented; it’s a losing battle of economic attrition to attempt implementing DRM.

You think that people should adjust their business models to “reality”, based on your belief that people will actually pay anybody enough money to live on, let alone prosper, for the simple creation of any given work?

Help me out with developing open-source software for high performance drug discovery sometime and tell me how “simple” that knowledge work is.

But the value isn’t in “selling software as a product”, it’s in software development to do things people need.

That’s a nice idea and all, but the world doesn’t work like that and if it did, there wouldn’t be any artists left who could support themselves through their art.

Allow me to quote from Stephan Kinsella:

“The reason that “free rider” is not an actual problem is that people adjust their expectations to fit reality. If the process is not viable without monopoly status, it will fail and something that does work will be erected in its place.”

I often wonder how staples get made. I buy a box for a dollar or so and it sits in a desk drawer, at home, gradually being used over like a decade. So I wonder how anyone can make money at this. Then it occurs to me, there is a demand for staples; and suppliers will provide staples if they can make a profit at it. Given the demand, whatever sales price level is necessary for a profit, that’s what supppliers will tend to sell for. Whatever that level is, is hard to say–but it must not be too out of line with current prices, even if it’s not easy for me as a consumer to see how a profit could be made. It must be in there, somehow. If a profit could not be made at $1 a box, then they would be selling for $2 a box.

“Use the unlimited resource to sell the limited resource.” The free online copies are increasing demand for purchasable, physical, limited DVDs. I am currently producing an “Artists’s Edition” DVD which I will sell on my web site.

The film is free as in freedom, not free as in free beer. The content is free. The containers – DVDs, books, computers, merchandise – are not.

Please view the interview that accompanies that song video:
http://www.thirteen.org/sites/reel13/blog/nina-sings-the-copyright-song/445/

And please see
http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/
and information on the store and creator endorsed mark.

Free Markets are Free Culture too. Monopolies aren’t.

Finally, here is my official position on copyright.

“Good artists copy. Great artists steal.
- Pablo Picasso”

But you don’t know what he meant by that, do you? You don’t know at all. You could read that quote for a week and not understand it.

Picasso’s quote is about learning and making something that you have perceived truly your own. It has absolutely nothing to do with the argument about copyright.

Quotes are very dangerous because the quoter is seldom up to the job.

Just a thought, but aren’t the exceptions to the rule what breed evolution?

Not that I have a horse in the copyright/fight issue, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least that you equate truth with deductive logic.

Deductive logic is the exercise of pulling further truths from a single, unassailable first truth. And you’ve clearly got yours. But it’s not universally excepted to say the least.

Also, your claims on Google AdSense and Amazon Affiliates as a truly viable alternative to real sales/profits are still laughable since even people I know who have sites that get tons of traffic simply can’t live off of the measly fees paid by those services.

Until giving your work for free online pays you more than a minimum wage job at any chain store, then your argument holds 100% no water.

Copyright, patents, and trademarks are used by many average folks for valid reasons to protect their work and allows them to control what they create so they can make a living entertaining you and others. There are folks who have clearly abused the system, but it still is beneficial.

Also, please can you admit that if there were no issues of claim for performance rights SIta Sings the Blues would be a copyrighted for profit release?

So then you’ve never bought a book?

You mean PDFs? :p

I might invest in a dominant assurance contract for Cory to write a new book though, as long as it’s published freely as a PDF.

Because even though I’ve downloaded all his books for free, I want something new from him.

I’m not crediting you in any way on the site of course.

Attribution is an orthogonal issue.

But that’s because you already created the original and should be happy about it.

Gee, I guess I’ll have to update my website with new information.

Good luck copying, say, BoingBoing; because you can’t copy Cory, Mark, Xeni, David, et. al.

How exactly then can Sita Sings the Blues profit from a “share and share alike” philosophy?

All complaints Nina Paley has made about this situation have always included details on how she’s unable to sell or distribute this film.

So honestly, I call bullshit on the fact that people realize that they can simply make money by sharing. This move on her part is clearly desperation. It’s not good and unpleasant but it’s motivation is based on the fact she has no other choice thanks to a catch-22 in the copyright law that is impeding her efforts to create her own copyrighted work that she was clearly hoping she would profit off of.

So that’s why bringing this stuff up is flawed: In a perfect world Sita Sings the Blues would be a for-profit work released under the same exact copyright laws people are now damning.

So could there be a focus on the specific aspect of the copyright law that screwed her over and not some blanket indictment on copyright in general? Or is that too reasonable?

And it’s very nice of you to offer your content for free redistribution. It’s very cool. But it’s your choice. It’s the particular game you’re playing at the moment. Maybe you’re hoping for an offer from Warner Brothers eventually and would be very happy to work under typical copyright rules at that time. I make similar choices depending on what I happen to be doing. Sometimes I love it when people redistribute. Sometimes I choose differently for another project.

Copyright is great when it’s not endless and not with DRM. When it’s reasonable. Creative Commons is great too. But each game has to be respected.

There’s plenty of room for arguing about what makes for reasonable copyright laws. But to cast it out as needless would actually be very harmful to many creators of many things.

You sir, are an ass.

And, you can quote me on that.

But it’s not universally excepted to say the least.

Slavery, witch burning, and women as chattel were also once popularly held beliefs, but that didn’t make them any more logically defensible.

(To be clear, I think I’m advocating for greater skepticism rather than the cult of logical positivism. It’s not that there’s no place for subjective preference, but I’m opposed to arbitrary demands of “culture” thrust upon me; they must withstand critical analysis to earn my respect. Arguments from authority, populism, or tradition are unacceptable.)

You say, “Good luck copying, say, BoingBoing; because you can’t copy Cory, Mark, Xeni, David, et. al.”

But I can copy anybody. Want to see? I’m a master forger. I’m silent in the night like Dracula. I climb walls upside down. That way, no one can kiss my ass.

I hate it when people kiss my ass because it’s so horribly sensitive and I get a rash.

Perhaps the exceptions are becoming less rare.

I am! I am an ass! You got it! I love that! ‘You sir, are an ass!’

Can I put that on my web site? Seriously, can I re-post that on my site. It’s cool.

Slavery, witch burning, and women as chattel were also once popularly held beliefs, but that didn’t make them any more logically defensible.

Logically defensible and practical realities have no common ground.

For example, can you provide a true economic model in which someone can simply work on a piece of art and give it away and then make a living?

Just a thought, but aren’t the exceptions to the rule what breed evolution?

Vague, general statement that has no real basis in reality.

Look, as much as I love fiercely independent music labels like Dischord Records it’s clear decades later the only folks who ever managed to pull off a true D.I.Y. lifestyle that they espouse are them themselves and nobody else.

There is no revolution that has created a business model that can sustain musicians the same way they did. I love them, but face facts: They are an exception that found a way to do it.

But the irony? With CD sales slumping they have issues bringing money in.

So the obvious solution: A Fugazi reunion tour sponsored by Cheetos ala Boing Boing video being sponsored by Cheetos.

Past that how about I ask you this: What the eff ever happened to tip jar links on sites for PayPal and such? I only see them on web developer sites where a programmer asks for donations to keep a project alive. But past that nothing. Could it be voluntarily asking people to pay for things doesn’t work? Because while I gladly tip artists and developers, I’m an exception. And I know that.

But you clearly know that.

So honestly, I call bullshit on the fact that people realize that they can simply make money by sharing.

Yeah, Cory explicitly encouraging people to redistribute his books freely online has totally wrecked his writing career. Good thing he has this blogging gig or he’d be destitute.

That or he said (paraphrasing) “You’d be a fool not to [share your material online].”

Definitely one of those two.

Zuzu, as I—and others—have asked before, do you actually work in a field in which copyright plays a role in your livelihood?

If you’re asking whether I work with “intangibles”, yes. e.g. distributed software development and biotechnology (both in silico and in vitro, although the latter crosses the line into “tangibles”, but it’s primarily the former).

Am I rich? No, at least not yet. But I also have low overhead and a low-maintenance lifestyle. (I don’t use credit. I own a used car. I don’t have kids, or a partner I have to financially support.) I also rely on multiple revenue streams for “unemployment insurance”.

I’m a fan of Free Agent Nation and Rise of the Creative Class.

Also, your claims on Google AdSense and Amazon Affiliates as a truly viable alternative to real sales/profits are still laughable since even people I know who have sites that get tons of traffic simply can’t live off of the measly fees paid by those services.

Didn’t Danny Choo say that he bought a house with his Amazon Affiliate money?

Until giving your work for free online pays you more than a minimum wage job at any chain store, then your argument holds 100% no water.

Technically you’re invoking the genetic fallacy. The argument holds water even if it’s just something I heard in a dream, as long as it is logically sound.

Keeping the code open-source, technically interactive programming, is a benefit not a cost.

Again, the code itself is “dead”. It’s only the programmers who continually develop the code that are valuable. (i.e. human capital, that businesses have to competitively bid to retain.) Because no software project is ever finished, either.

Copyright, patents, and trademarks are used by many average folks for valid reasons to protect their work and allows them to control what they create so they can make a living entertaining you and others.

It’s not protection, it’s extortion. And as I’ve illustrated, the reasons are not valid at all. (Particularly patents, which not only violate my free speech rights but also my real property rights as well. …since copyrights and patents aren’t even contracts that I’ve agreed to; they’re just imposed upon me by the Federal government.)

Also, please can you admit that if there were no issues of claim for performance rights SIta Sings the Blues would be a copyrighted for profit release?

How would I admit that? Ask Nina Paley. But I strongly disagree with your claim that not invoking copyright is a second-tier fallback position, and that exercising copyright is always preferable.

For example, can you provide a true economic model in which someone can simply work on a piece of art and give it away and then make a living?

It’s called a commission.

Do you need an explanation on how a 23,000 percent increase in DVD sales is simply an insane claim to begin with? Tell me it bumped 200% or 500% and that’s believable. 23,000 percent in sales for a DVD collection that has been released for years prior to this claim?

Also do you even know what you are talking about in the case of this film? She can’t even sell ONE COPY and is giving the film away FOR FREE. Not comparable to short promo clips being given away by a major comedy entity that is then selling copyrighted DVD sets for a tidy profit.

As far as the pulpit of giving things away and still making a profit, Cory is clearly the only person who has done that. And his “copyfight” posts seek to spread that concept to others. But the reality is it’s not worked for anyone else.

Folks like Zuzu saying you can make a living just giving things away: Just do that and get back to us.

Like I have said before, there are indeed some ridiculous aspects to copyright law but claiming you just have to toss it all away is insane.

Past that how about I ask you this: What the eff ever happened to tip jar links on sites for PayPal and such? I only see them on web developer sites where a programmer asks for donations to keep a project alive. But past that nothing. Could it be voluntarily asking people to pay for things doesn’t work? Because while I gladly tip artists and developers, I’m an exception. And I know that.

Google AdSense and Amazon Associates are more profitable alternatives?

Again, if you’re a programmer, and someone (or a group of people) needs your software to exist to do whatever they’re going to do, and they’re willing to pay for it, there’s a multitude of ways for them to organize to compensate you for writing software that aren’t “selling copies”.

Because, again, anyone with a computer can make an infinite number of copies. That part isn’t scarce or valuable.

Writing the new software is what people are willing to pay for.

@#9 – Trace, you completely devalue creation like that and nobody will bother to create. Creation of intellectual property isn’t limited to works of art (though why artists should be treated differently escapes me). Consider engineering and software development just as two examples.

Say General Motors invests millions of dollars into building the perfect electric car using engineering nobody else thought of. Should the other car manufacturers be entitled to usurp that investment for their own profit? Why spend millions on R&D for green technology like wind and solar power? Why develop a new and better OS for your computer? What value would there even be in creating new things? Why not just wait for someone else to do something so you can snag it for free while still reaping the full benefits?

I get that some of the laws surrounding copyright protection are somewhat draconian, but overall I side with the creator, who I believe DESERVE to be paid for their efforts and achievements.