Read: [next] [previous] message
Re: [d@DCC] Copyright, eBooks & Public Domain Sources
From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ c11.ca>
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Ron Koster <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > And that's been such a new, different way of thinking for me now -- to > basically accept the fact that that's going to happen, and in a way just > be okay with it. I'm not quite saying that. It's a bit more nuanced. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean someone will do it if they believe it is wrong to do so. DRM doesn't deter people from accessing the unencrypted version of the content but it does often change their mind as to what is "right" and "wrong" considering how DRM treats them (IE: it treats them as wrongdoers, encouraging them to be wrongdoers). DRM is also not something applied to content (content can't make decisions), but something that is applied to devices against the interests of the owners of those devices. If copyright infringement can be compared to "theft" by some, non-owner locks on devices is equally (or I would say moreso) comparable to theft. On the other hand, if you treat your audiences with respect they will be far more likely to respect you in return. People intuitively want to compensate creators as they want them to continue to be creators -- it is the intermediaries like the DRM vendors who manipulate those relationships to the detriment of authors. Don't be thinking of going DRM-free and making your works more accessible as being like giving up on your copyright, but as the most important way to protect your copyright and related interests. So at this point I don't foresee myself charging for anything that I do, > As an experiment, offer a way for people to contribute even if it isn't mandatory. Re Phantom of the Opera... > > > It's not "inexplicable" or "stupid" to not have renewed. > > Oh, that was just the wording I'd seen used on those websites (at least > one of them, anyway). > I've seen it quite a bit as well. The idea that if some copyright is good, that more is somehow better, and that longer copyright magically means more rewards to creators (even though most studies suggest otherwise). I've heard some otherwise quite intelligent people say some pretty weird things when it comes to copyright. Margaret Atwood made some pretty backward comments about fair dealing as part of of a speech that was recently broadcast as part of CBC Ideas https://fairduty.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/history-begins-with-geology/ . She managed to get duped by people with ulterior motives, and is then promoting ideas that are counter-productive to her own interests. Normally science fiction authors figure these things out sooner, but I've been finding it interesting that she hasn't yet. I had a few things to say about her recent interventions in parliamentary committees during the study of the recent copyright bill: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5297 It's a progression people go through, from seeing this as a matter of "protect" (and that locking things up will somehow help) to understanding that it is a matter of "respect" (which is a human thing, not a technology thing). Thanks for the chat... _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Read: [next] [previous] message
List: [newer] [older] articles
You need to subscribe to post to this forum.