Read: [next] [previous] message

Re: [d@DCC] Copyright, eBooks & Public Domain Sources

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_>
To: "General Copyright Discussions (questions, organizing, etc)" <discuss (at)>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:00:47 -0400
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Ron Koster <> 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

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  .
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:

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

Thanks for the chat...
Discuss mailing list

Read: [next] [previous] message
List: [newer] [older] articles

You need to subscribe to post to this forum.
XML feed