Ottawa Citizen: The Anti-Copyright Crusader
The Anti-Copyright Crusader
In these digital days, Russell McORMOND argues for consumers' right to copy
The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday April 4, Page F6
It's no wonder that when McOrmond purchased a DVD for his anti-DMCA exercise, it was a copy of the movie Anti-Trust. He laughs at the irony of his choice. "The premise of the movie is that you've got these open-source developers who are writing all this cool software," he says. However, the DVD was encrypted to thwart like-minded techies in the real world. "Even though the movie is talking about this great thing called open source, it's actually illegal to watch the movie on an open-source player," McOrmond says.
read full story
Great talkback at Linux Today
Comments
Re: Fair opinions on copyrigth copy left [108]
by Peter Timusk on Thursday, April 04 @11:16AM
|
|
I think as an artist I am mad that I don't make money playing music. Saying that I am bad artist because I am not a millionaire is crass and rude. I am glad in the citizen article to see that you support my rights to earn a living in music. I also write stories and poems. These are mostly freely available on the net. I don't have an arts degree I don't have a computer science degree but my talents in writing in these fields is there because I want it be there. When I programmed in the late seventies I felt I had done a good thing. I had gotten something to work, therefore I wanted to share it, freely. It was about this time that Bill decided he should be paid for programming. I also got paid for porgramming. But that feeling/thought of giving something away because it is goood is still with me. I can agree with some of the points made by Richard Stallman in his essay "Why software should be free." I don't need to explore other business models. I already live, am alive, and make art. Somehow I survive. I do business. I earn money. Don't give up the values of these ideas for some pilot project into other business models. Free art is just one idea so is low cost art and low tech art. This is vast kettle of fish known as the world and the people in it who do things their way rather than the corporate way.
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Fair opinions on copyrigth copy left [110]
by Russell McOrmond on Friday, April 05 @08:50AM
|
|
"I am glad in the citizen article to see that you support my rights to earn a living in music."
Because of the battle against citizens and their personal privacy that has been started by the publishers (the middle-men in the important conversation between creators and their audiences), I am nervous to use the word "rights".
I truly believe, however, that more creators will be able to make a living at their craft in a more distributed economy than the current top-heavy, mega-media heavy economy. We seem to want to focus on the "Super-Stars", whether they be top-10 musicians, the top-paid movie directors or actors, or old-economy companies like Microsoft.
The focus on the Super-Stars makes us forget that less than 1% of the creators out there are super-stars. I for one have more of an interest to support an economy that supports the majority of artist than the super-stars. That 20 dollars that I might pay for a CD today would be better spent going to hear a band play locally -- and the musician receives a much larger cut of my entertainemt money than they do from the recording industry now!!
Restricting the ability to copy is also not necessary for all but one way to make money in ones craft. Yesterday I bought a copy of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (Adam Smith, 1723-1790). I paid 34.95 for the convenience of the format, not because the work was locked away and was only available in that format.
I would love to be paying a buck a song for an (unencrypted, copyable, etc) MP3 file directly from musicians websites. I rather hang out at Rasputin's listening to the Ragged Flowers (How's that for a plug ;-), than to buy a CD from someone who has hired (or been hired by) an RIAA member.
Real *fans* will pay the artists voluntarily, but will not pay when they are made to feel like criminals which is what the current battle between the publishers (RIAA/MPAA members) and audiences is doing.
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Fair opinions on copyrigth copy left [110]
by Russell McOrmond on Friday, April 05 @08:50AM
|
|
"I am glad in the citizen article to see that you support my rights to earn a living in music."
Because of the battle against citizens and their personal privacy that has been started by the publishers (the middle-men in the important conversation between creators and their audiences), I am nervous to use the word "rights".
I truly believe, however, that more creators will be able to make a living at their craft in a more distributed economy than the current top-heavy, mega-media heavy economy. We seem to want to focus on the "Super-Stars", whether they be top-10 musicians, the top-paid movie directors or actors, or old-economy companies like Microsoft.
The focus on the Super-Stars makes us forget that less than 1% of the creators out there are super-stars. I for one have more of an interest to support an economy that supports the majority of artist than the super-stars. That 20 dollars that I might pay for a CD today would be better spent going to hear a band play locally -- and the musician receives a much larger cut of my entertainemt money than they do from the recording industry now!!
Restricting the ability to copy is also not necessary for all but one way to make money in ones craft. Yesterday I bought a copy of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (Adam Smith, 1723-1790). I paid 34.95 for the convenience of the format, not because the work was locked away and was only available in that format.
I would love to be paying a buck a song for an (unencrypted, copyable, etc) MP3 file directly from musicians websites. I rather hang out at Rasputin's listening to the Ragged Flowers (How's that for a plug ;-), than to buy a CD from someone who has hired (or been hired by) an RIAA member.
Real *fans* will pay the artists voluntarily, but will not pay when they are made to feel like criminals which is what the current battle between the publishers (RIAA/MPAA members) and audiences is doing.
|
|
Re: A better quote [109]
by Michael Richardson on Thursday, April 04 @06:13PM
|
The better quote from the story is:
"In this respect, McOrmond argues that he's taking the free-market high road which encourages innovation and development, while copyright holders are asking for government protectionism and sanctioned cartels."
|
|
Re: Disney artists in Ottawa open source is not ab [111]
by Peter Timusk on Saturday, April 06 @10:37AM
|
|
I know one Disney artist who lives in Ottawa. At least he seems to be. He is always chasing disney for work at trade shows. He sends scripts to Chris Carter. He has I am sure made a scene in the film Heavy Metal. So here is one friend of mine who is a cartoonist and makes some money working to make the super stars. I too have worked for the likes of K.D Laing and Kim Mitchell as a stage hand. Are we rich artists? NO. You need to connect this discussion with the idea that work is becoming more and more a slave racket with longer hours for less pay. This is the information revolution's social context. This is why the major companies are able to take over the business of supplying the consumer. We need equally distrubuted work as well as equally distributed intellectual property. This is one reason there is an open source movement, so that, the Information,(source code) that computer workers need or have is not controlled by managment or capitalists or copyright.
|
|
Re: Equally distributed intellectual property? [112]
by Russell McOrmond on Saturday, April 06 @11:34AM
|
|
The easiest way to accomplish the "equal distribution of Intellectual Property" is to simply stop invalidly treating ideas as property. Information sharing and communication is a natural human act, and it is only government
intervention into this natural act that makes the information more scarce.
I personally do not support "socialist" style redistribution of wealth,
but distributed/decentralized Free Market economic principles. Currently
the Industrial/Monopolist economic system is a barrier to participation
for independent entrepreneur, and I strongly believe it is these
independent businesses where the majority of innovation comes from.
In the article I referenced contradictory policies on DVD's as an example.
Earlier today I posted
additional notes on this topic.
As to the slave market, check out LOVE'S MANIFESTO.
Courtney sounds off on the state of today's sordid
and malicious recording industry in an uncensored
quasi-essay that provided the basis for her speech
at this year's Digital Hollywood in New York.
The discussions are out there, but people in general have still trusted
the rhetoric of the publishing industries. We need to recognize these
industries as an increasingly outdated and unnecessary middle-man that is
interfering with the important artist/audience relationship, and the "bargain" between these two
groups.
|
|
Re: Equally distributed intellectual property? [112]
by Russell McOrmond on Saturday, April 06 @11:34AM
|
|
The easiest way to accomplish the "equal distribution of Intellectual Property" is to simply stop invalidly treating ideas as property. Information sharing and communication is a natural human act, and it is only government
intervention into this natural act that makes the information more scarce.
I personally do not support "socialist" style redistribution of wealth,
but distributed/decentralized Free Market economic principles. Currently
the Industrial/Monopolist economic system is a barrier to participation
for independent entrepreneur, and I strongly believe it is these
independent businesses where the majority of innovation comes from.
In the article I referenced contradictory policies on DVD's as an example.
Earlier today I posted
additional notes on this topic.
As to the slave market, check out LOVE'S MANIFESTO.
Courtney sounds off on the state of today's sordid
and malicious recording industry in an uncensored
quasi-essay that provided the basis for her speech
at this year's Digital Hollywood in New York.
The discussions are out there, but people in general have still trusted
the rhetoric of the publishing industries. We need to recognize these
industries as an increasingly outdated and unnecessary middle-man that is
interfering with the important artist/audience relationship, and the "bargain" between these two
groups.
|
|
Re: Fair opinions on copyrigth copy left [108]
by Peter Timusk on Thursday, April 04 @11:16AM
|
|
I think as an artist I am mad that I don't make money playing music. Saying that I am bad artist because I am not a millionaire is crass and rude. I am glad in the citizen article to see that you support my rights to earn a living in music. I also write stories and poems. These are mostly freely available on the net. I don't have an arts degree I don't have a computer science degree but my talents in writing in these fields is there because I want it be there. When I programmed in the late seventies I felt I had done a good thing. I had gotten something to work, therefore I wanted to share it, freely. It was about this time that Bill decided he should be paid for programming. I also got paid for porgramming. But that feeling/thought of giving something away because it is goood is still with me. I can agree with some of the points made by Richard Stallman in his essay "Why software should be free." I don't need to explore other business models. I already live, am alive, and make art. Somehow I survive. I do business. I earn money. Don't give up the values of these ideas for some pilot project into other business models. Free art is just one idea so is low cost art and low tech art. This is vast kettle of fish known as the world and the people in it who do things their way rather than the corporate way.
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Fair opinions on copyrigth copy left [110]
by Russell McOrmond on Friday, April 05 @08:50AM
|
|
"I am glad in the citizen article to see that you support my rights to earn a living in music."
Because of the battle against citizens and their personal privacy that has been started by the publishers (the middle-men in the important conversation between creators and their audiences), I am nervous to use the word "rights".
I truly believe, however, that more creators will be able to make a living at their craft in a more distributed economy than the current top-heavy, mega-media heavy economy. We seem to want to focus on the "Super-Stars", whether they be top-10 musicians, the top-paid movie directors or actors, or old-economy companies like Microsoft.
The focus on the Super-Stars makes us forget that less than 1% of the creators out there are super-stars. I for one have more of an interest to support an economy that supports the majority of artist than the super-stars. That 20 dollars that I might pay for a CD today would be better spent going to hear a band play locally -- and the musician receives a much larger cut of my entertainemt money than they do from the recording industry now!!
Restricting the ability to copy is also not necessary for all but one way to make money in ones craft. Yesterday I bought a copy of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (Adam Smith, 1723-1790). I paid 34.95 for the convenience of the format, not because the work was locked away and was only available in that format.
I would love to be paying a buck a song for an (unencrypted, copyable, etc) MP3 file directly from musicians websites. I rather hang out at Rasputin's listening to the Ragged Flowers (How's that for a plug ;-), than to buy a CD from someone who has hired (or been hired by) an RIAA member.
Real *fans* will pay the artists voluntarily, but will not pay when they are made to feel like criminals which is what the current battle between the publishers (RIAA/MPAA members) and audiences is doing.
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Fair opinions on copyrigth copy left [110]
by Russell McOrmond on Friday, April 05 @08:50AM
|
|
"I am glad in the citizen article to see that you support my rights to earn a living in music."
Because of the battle against citizens and their personal privacy that has been started by the publishers (the middle-men in the important conversation between creators and their audiences), I am nervous to use the word "rights".
I truly believe, however, that more creators will be able to make a living at their craft in a more distributed economy than the current top-heavy, mega-media heavy economy. We seem to want to focus on the "Super-Stars", whether they be top-10 musicians, the top-paid movie directors or actors, or old-economy companies like Microsoft.
The focus on the Super-Stars makes us forget that less than 1% of the creators out there are super-stars. I for one have more of an interest to support an economy that supports the majority of artist than the super-stars. That 20 dollars that I might pay for a CD today would be better spent going to hear a band play locally -- and the musician receives a much larger cut of my entertainemt money than they do from the recording industry now!!
Restricting the ability to copy is also not necessary for all but one way to make money in ones craft. Yesterday I bought a copy of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (Adam Smith, 1723-1790). I paid 34.95 for the convenience of the format, not because the work was locked away and was only available in that format.
I would love to be paying a buck a song for an (unencrypted, copyable, etc) MP3 file directly from musicians websites. I rather hang out at Rasputin's listening to the Ragged Flowers (How's that for a plug ;-), than to buy a CD from someone who has hired (or been hired by) an RIAA member.
Real *fans* will pay the artists voluntarily, but will not pay when they are made to feel like criminals which is what the current battle between the publishers (RIAA/MPAA members) and audiences is doing.
|
|
Re: A better quote [109]
by Michael Richardson on Thursday, April 04 @06:13PM
|
The better quote from the story is:
"In this respect, McOrmond argues that he's taking the free-market high road which encourages innovation and development, while copyright holders are asking for government protectionism and sanctioned cartels."
|
|
Re: Disney artists in Ottawa open source is not ab [111]
by Peter Timusk on Saturday, April 06 @10:37AM
|
|
I know one Disney artist who lives in Ottawa. At least he seems to be. He is always chasing disney for work at trade shows. He sends scripts to Chris Carter. He has I am sure made a scene in the film Heavy Metal. So here is one friend of mine who is a cartoonist and makes some money working to make the super stars. I too have worked for the likes of K.D Laing and Kim Mitchell as a stage hand. Are we rich artists? NO. You need to connect this discussion with the idea that work is becoming more and more a slave racket with longer hours for less pay. This is the information revolution's social context. This is why the major companies are able to take over the business of supplying the consumer. We need equally distrubuted work as well as equally distributed intellectual property. This is one reason there is an open source movement, so that, the Information,(source code) that computer workers need or have is not controlled by managment or capitalists or copyright.
|
|
Re: Equally distributed intellectual property? [112]
by Russell McOrmond on Saturday, April 06 @11:34AM
|
|
The easiest way to accomplish the "equal distribution of Intellectual Property" is to simply stop invalidly treating ideas as property. Information sharing and communication is a natural human act, and it is only government
intervention into this natural act that makes the information more scarce.
I personally do not support "socialist" style redistribution of wealth,
but distributed/decentralized Free Market economic principles. Currently
the Industrial/Monopolist economic system is a barrier to participation
for independent entrepreneur, and I strongly believe it is these
independent businesses where the majority of innovation comes from.
In the article I referenced contradictory policies on DVD's as an example.
Earlier today I posted
additional notes on this topic.
As to the slave market, check out LOVE'S MANIFESTO.
Courtney sounds off on the state of today's sordid
and malicious recording industry in an uncensored
quasi-essay that provided the basis for her speech
at this year's Digital Hollywood in New York.
The discussions are out there, but people in general have still trusted
the rhetoric of the publishing industries. We need to recognize these
industries as an increasingly outdated and unnecessary middle-man that is
interfering with the important artist/audience relationship, and the "bargain" between these two
groups.
|
|
Re: Equally distributed intellectual property? [112]
by Russell McOrmond on Saturday, April 06 @11:34AM
|
|
The easiest way to accomplish the "equal distribution of Intellectual Property" is to simply stop invalidly treating ideas as property. Information sharing and communication is a natural human act, and it is only government
intervention into this natural act that makes the information more scarce.
I personally do not support "socialist" style redistribution of wealth,
but distributed/decentralized Free Market economic principles. Currently
the Industrial/Monopolist economic system is a barrier to participation
for independent entrepreneur, and I strongly believe it is these
independent businesses where the majority of innovation comes from.
In the article I referenced contradictory policies on DVD's as an example.
Earlier today I posted
additional notes on this topic.
As to the slave market, check out LOVE'S MANIFESTO.
Courtney sounds off on the state of today's sordid
and malicious recording industry in an uncensored
quasi-essay that provided the basis for her speech
at this year's Digital Hollywood in New York.
The discussions are out there, but people in general have still trusted
the rhetoric of the publishing industries. We need to recognize these
industries as an increasingly outdated and unnecessary middle-man that is
interfering with the important artist/audience relationship, and the "bargain" between these two
groups.
|
|
|
|
