99words ([info]99words) wrote,
@ 2006-01-31 11:26:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
COPYRIGHT

I love music, movies, and books. I also love technology. I want to use technology to deliver the media I love anywhere, anywhen, with anyone.

This is fair use: I bought it, let me use it. I will tell all my friends about my favorite music. I might play it for them or even give them a digital version of a song. This is evangelism, not theft. This is advertising you cannot buy.

Restrictive copyright is like a vegetarian knife. You bought the knife, but if you cut meat with it, we'll sue you. Excuse me? Let's think again.

(Post a new comment)


[info]fontosaurus
2006-01-31 08:42 pm UTC (link)
FUCKING BRILLIANT.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
xeDOZdwUUDQ
(Anonymous)
2008-06-23 05:31 am UTC (link)
7LPkRe dfv078fnw8f934ndvkg2l

(Reply to this) (Parent)
SzjNZzWkHKb
(Anonymous)
2008-06-27 07:13 pm UTC (link)
nWiirF fv9db5dgbn3207vybfv5

(Reply to this) (Parent)
UloojSMNlxdUzoFWo
(Anonymous)
2008-07-06 06:54 am UTC (link)
cool post dude

(Reply to this) (Parent)
xaYmECYLMpl
(Anonymous)
2008-09-03 11:24 am UTC (link)
hello guys

(Reply to this) (Parent)
zmNVuEUwYyXeD
(Anonymous)
2008-09-10 05:38 am UTC (link)
Excellent work, Nice Design

(Reply to this) (Parent)
yntjeMBgRyEPKF
(Anonymous)
2008-09-27 12:53 pm UTC (link)
It's serious

(Reply to this) (Parent)
IYRaeSBVTTXZ
(Anonymous)
2008-09-27 07:11 pm UTC (link)
Excellent work, Nice Design

(Reply to this) (Parent)
PDbpyNZclDlK - (Anonymous), 2008-09-27 10:15 pm UTC
99
(Anonymous)
2006-01-31 09:23 pm UTC (link)
Giving the song YOU bought to someone else means THEY won't buy it.This means the person who created the music/video/etc
is screwed out of the money. What's fair about that?

Use it all you want. You bought it. That's fair, but just
like any other product creators want to be paid. That's fair also.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: 99
[info]pavel_lishin
2006-01-31 09:24 pm UTC (link)
Doesn't necessarily follow. If you download a few samples of a song, you might want to buy the whole CD, or all of that artist's works. Or you might go to their concert, or buy a shirt, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: 99 - [info]99words, 2006-01-31 09:28 pm UTC
Re: 99 - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 12:02 am UTC
Re: 99 - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 12:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]angeliwoqu, 2008-07-16 08:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]victorialunec, 2008-07-16 06:16 am UTC
Re: 99 - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 09:55 am UTC
Re: 99 - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 09:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ritapasor, 2008-07-16 03:20 pm UTC
Re: 99 - [info]joshua.drake.myopenid.com, 2006-02-01 10:39 pm UTC
Re: 99 - [info]vakfike5, 2008-07-12 09:31 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2006-01-31 10:04 pm UTC (link)
Wow -- how could anyone NOT see the logic of comparing a CREATED WORK OF ART to a KNIFE???? Yes, a song that's the product of a professional writer and recorded by professional musicians is EXACTLY like a mass-produced utensil. What a BRILLIANT analogy!!!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]silas216
2006-01-31 10:21 pm UTC (link)
Given what usually passes for popular music (and artists, for that matter)these days, that analogy is even more spot on than you realize.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 12:19 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 12:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]silas216, 2006-02-01 12:23 am UTC
It's still use of a work that you bought, - (Anonymous), 2006-01-31 10:25 pm UTC
you call that a knife? - [info]99words, 2006-01-31 10:30 pm UTC
Re: you call that a knife? - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 12:17 am UTC
Re: you call that a knife? - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 01:11 am UTC
Re: you call that a knife? - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 02:31 pm UTC
Re: you call that a knife? - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 09:34 pm UTC
Creative Commons
(Anonymous)
2006-01-31 11:31 pm UTC (link)
Is this work under a creative commons license?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Creative Commons
[info]99words
2006-02-01 04:32 am UTC (link)
Yes.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Creative Commons - [info]tauceti, 2006-02-01 05:49 am UTC

[info]g3k
2006-02-01 01:51 am UTC (link)
Hey, BoingBoing people: if you're going to comment, at least bother to sign up for an account so it doesn't look like you're arguing with yourself while wearing an Internet Ski Mask.

For the record, this is pure brilliance.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-02-01 02:32 pm UTC (link)
Damn. If that's "pure" brilliance, I'd HATE to see impure brilliance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 04:30 pm UTC
Um, No.
(Anonymous)
2006-02-01 07:05 pm UTC (link)
"Restrictive copyright is like a vegetarian knife. You bought the knife, but if you cut meat with it, we'll sue you."

Is this supposed to be an example of sophisticated thinking? In fact, it's not even thinking. Try this: "Restrictive copyright is like a vegetarian knife. You bought the knife, but if you [PUT IT IN A STAR-TREK REPLICATOR AND MAKE FIFTY FREE COPIES OF IT AND GIVE IT TO ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS TO CUT] meat with it, we'll sue you."

"But we're really not stealing the knives," you say, "because our friends will be sure to pay for the exact same knife just because they like it so much. I promise they will. Honestly."

That's such total self-serving bullshit, and deep down inside you all know it is. My friend gives me a free MP3 collection, and so I promise to go out of my way to track down the artists and pay them for it? Who are you fooling?!

It's so obvious to everyone but you that want you really want is to steal. Plain and simple. You think that you're so respectable, but in fact, you're like a little four-year-old who, when caught with his arm buried in the cookie jar and his mouth full of crumbs, says with the straightest, most earnest face, "No, I'm not taking any cookies, Mom. Honest."

The ability of self-serving people to rationalize and deceive themselves into moral respectability is just stunning to behold.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Um, No.
[info]99words
2006-02-01 08:48 pm UTC (link)
My essay defends fair use, not indiscriminate file sharing. I agree with you -- sharing my entire .mp3 collection on a P2P system is not fair use, even if I legally purchased every CD for which I have an mp3. By the same token, having a collection of 5000 mp3s from 2000 albums I have not purchased is not fair use. It's theft, and I do neither of those things.

To quote my own self: "This is fair use: I *bought* it, let me use it." Fair use includes the right to move my purchased media between platforms/formats for my personal use. There is also established legal and cultural precedent for limited individual not-for-profit sharing.

One of the reasons this issue is so murky is that in an effort to stop rampant wholesale piracy and file sharing (which I agree is bad for artists and record companies), the industry is throwing out the fair use baby with the piracy bathwater. I don't want to lose my baby, even if the water is dirty.

I am a semi-pro unsigned singer-songwriter-producer with a self-released CD. What I want more than anything is to be paid for my music so I can quit my day job. I know exactly how much skill, effort and investment it takes to write a song, perform it, record it, press it, and distribute it. That skill and effort deserved to be compensated.

So no, I don't believe in free cookies for everyone. I make cookies and want somebody to buy mine.

Peace, y'all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Um, No. - (Anonymous), 2006-02-01 08:58 pm UTC
missing the point
[info]ninevolttoys
2006-02-01 07:06 pm UTC (link)
It never ceases to amaze me how people tend to obscure the point of a discussion with grammatical and stylistic objections. If you don't understand the analogy, ask for clarification. If you understand the analogy, your objections are just so many mental gymnastics aimed at inflating your own ego.

The key to DRM and all it's tributary issues has to do with profit. If you make a copy of music and give it to a friend, that's word of mouth advertising, a boon to any business whether we're talking about original content creation or knives. If, on the other hand, you SELL the copy to a friend, you've stepped over the line.

Record companies are in business, they exist to make a profit. Any moves they make are toward that end. What sticks in my craw (yes i said it) is the use of the relatively new word in the content industry: repurposing

In other words, "Can we get consumers to pay for the exact same thing again by inventing a new way to play it"?

We buy CD's for only one purpose, to hear music. Most people really don't care how the music is produced/distributed/played. In the age of digital recording and storage, we are paying for a particular arrangement of bits, not the process of recording those bits. Every EULA we agree to should give us the right to use those digits in any form they take without having to pay for the same ARRANGEMENT every time a huge electronics company finds a new way to record/distribute that arrangement.

My 2 cents....and my first ever posting....be gentle with me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: missing the point
(Anonymous)
2006-02-01 09:48 pm UTC (link)
I now own 6 Dave Matthews CDs that I never would have bought before Matthews himself released Lillywhite Sessions because his producer refused. A friend gave me a copy of the free CD, I listened, then bought everything I could find by this guy.
That's what sharing does. Sure, there are people who overdo it, and I respect the corporate position when they go after Napster, et al, in an effort to stop the flood of freebies. But when the RIAA sues grandmothers and children for having stuff on their hard drives in shared folders, that's inane and guaranteed to fuel the fire rather than extinguish it.
Sharing generally benefits the artist in the long run, and if the corporate mofos in the industry would back off and cut retail prices a bit, they'd find it benefits them in the long run too. The harder they clamp down, the slipperier it will get.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Thanks a lot for Your informative web-site
(Anonymous)
2007-01-22 12:39 am UTC (link)
Great site, I am bookmarking it!Keep it up!
With the best regards!
David

(Reply to this)

Thank You for site
(Anonymous)
2007-08-26 07:55 am UTC (link)
Thank you for your site. I have found here much useful information.
Good site ! ;)

(Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…