From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2010 - 19:13:53 PDT
One might at least ask that words retain the meanings they have in
common usage. "Objects" are not ideas, although in a philosophical
sense one might argue that ideas can be objects. Some people were
using the word "ownership" in such as way as to suggest that the issue
was whether people have a right to own their own thoughts and
experiences, rather than the issue being who has the right to exhibit
and exploit things that other people make. And yes, creative ownership
is something that exists in law.
On Oct 14, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Tom McCormack wrote:
> Anna Biller,
>
> Objects can be owned by people, but objects are also ideas. Mickey
> Mouse exists on a thousand objects, but can also be reproduced
> without access to those objects. The subject of a Titian painting –
> same deal. You could always steal content. You’re right that the
> Internet does exaggerate the inherently reproducible nature of
> things, though, and that’s worth pointing out - in fact, it seems
> like it’s a major point. I felt like you were implying my tone was
> oppressive and coercive, but I’m not sure pointing to the way things
> are and saying we need to find a way to deal with it is either of
> those things. Certainly not every artist has to “want” the current
> state of things (altho, I think there are aspects worth
> celebrating), but it might be psychologically healthy to “accept” it.
>
> I’m confused by your last line: “And yes, there is such a thing as
> ‘creative ownership.’” Are you making that claim in a legal context?
> In a philosophical or moral one? I’m just looking for clarification.
> What do you consider ownership to be more generally? Is it a
> natural, inherent right we have to certain things? What things? I’ll
> offer up this Thomas Jefferson quote:
>
> “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others
> of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called
> an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he
> keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself
> into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess
> himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses
> the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who
> receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
> lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light
> without darkening me.”
>
> Jefferson was talking specifically about inventions, which are
> usually objects, but always ideas too.
>
> -Tom
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Fred Camper <email suppressed> wrote:
> I heard a talk by copyright lawyer Lawrence Lessig that's quote a
> propos here.
>
> When he saw that the copyright to Mickey Mouse et al. was going to get
> extended yet again, he made a proposal: to get an extension the owner
> would have to register and pay a reasonable fee. His point is that the
> fee would be immaterial to Disney and companies like it, but that
> there are millions of objects out there, and this would include the
> old newsreels and instructional films beloved of found footage users,
> for which the copyright owner cannot even be located, or doesn't care
> and wouldn't register, and that most such things could then become
> public domain. The mad dog right wing corporate whores who are our US
> congresspeople would not buy it.
>
> Unfortunately the mad dog Bush right wingers on the Supreme Court
> ignore the "original intent" of the Constitution that they say they
> follow when it comes to the rights of corporations. It's a pretty good
> guess that the framers' idea of "limited" times for copyrights did NOT
> extend to 95 years!
>
> By the way, I don't exactly think of myself as a "leftie" either. It
> just simply isn't rational to make copyrights this long, and it's
> contrary to the intent of the framers, who never intended them to
> support grandchildren.
>
> An interesting fact: if you are a publication who wants to run Martin
> Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech, you have to pay
> thousands of dollars to his estate. Thus the speech is not reproduced
> as often as it might be otherwise. WHAT???
>
> Fred Camper
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks