Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Dec 2011 20:34 UTC
Internet & Networking It was fun while it lasted. This internet thing became too powerful, and shifted the balance of power too much to the people. Politicians found a partner in the content industry, and here we have it. After a mysterious unexplained 180 by a Dutch political party, ACTA has been signed by all 27 members of the EU. In the meantime, it's looking like SOPA, despite delays, is going to make it through, despite fierce opposition from the technology industry (except Apple and Microsoft, who don't care about a free and open web) and the very architects of the internet. To top it all off, UMG apparently has complete control over YouTube's content, allowing them to remove any video they don't like without even having to invoke the DMCA.
Thread beginning with comment 500440
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Steps to undermine ACTA
by obsidian on Sat 17th Dec 2011 22:50 UTC
obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

For a start, musicians should be distributing their work directly, bypassing Big Content altogether.
( I've heard that a number of them already do this.)

Another step - distribute works as "public domain".
That means that "nobody and everybody" "owns" the work, and they can do anything they like with it.
Public-domain has long been overlooked - it is time for it to take its rightful place in centre-stage.

Public domain completely bypasses all of the copyright/licensing legal BS.
Public domain is the future.

These are two positive steps that can be taken NOW.
People will hopefully have more ideas to add.

Edited 2011-12-17 22:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Steps to undermine ACTA
by ilovebeer on Sun 18th Dec 2011 19:30 in reply to "Steps to undermine ACTA"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

For a start, musicians should be distributing their work directly, bypassing Big Content altogether.
( I've heard that a number of them already do this.)

People do tend to think it's that simple. I suppose if I didn't know any better I would too.

Another step - distribute works as "public domain".
That means that "nobody and everybody" "owns" the work, and they can do anything they like with it.
Public-domain has long been overlooked - it is time for it to take its rightful place in centre-stage.

Public domain completely bypasses all of the copyright/licensing legal BS.
Public domain is the future.

First of all, all that copyright and licensing legal "BS" is there to protect the owners rights & interests. It works very well at doing so, but it can't help people who make bad decisions.

Secondly, you can not make a living off of releasing public domain works. Any music who says they don't care about making money with their work is lying to your face -- unless they actually do release their music free-of-charge.

The idea that music should be free is absolutely absurd. I suppose all forms of art should be free as well. Every painting, every poem or piece of written work, movies, everything. People always seem to forget the music business is a BUSINESS FIRST. Products are created with the intent of for-profit sale to consumers. People CHOOSE to participate in this business.

These are two positive steps that can be taken NOW.
People will hopefully have more ideas to add.

As long as there is _any_ financial components, there's nothing positive about what you're suggesting. And for the people who don't have a financial component, it's a complete non-issue because they don't participate in the music business.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Steps to undermine ACTA
by reez on Sun 18th Dec 2011 22:55 in reply to "RE: Steps to undermine ACTA"
reez Member since:
2006-06-28

First of all, all that copyright and licensing legal "BS" is there to protect the owners rights & interests. It works very well at doing so, but it can't help people who make bad decisions.

Secondly, you can not make a living off of releasing public domain works. Any music who says they don't care about making money with their work is lying to your face -- unless they actually do release their music free-of-charge.

The idea that music should be free is absolutely absurd. I suppose all forms of art should be free as well. Every painting, every poem or piece of written work, movies, everything. People always seem to forget the music business is a BUSINESS FIRST. Products are created with the intent of for-profit sale to consumers. People CHOOSE to participate in this business.

I choose to give my money to:
artists on Jamendo (and other free stuff I find elsewhere (I bought the free albums from NIN, Machinae Supremacy))
EFF
Wikipedia
Open Source Projects
People who put their stuff on YT, etc. for free

Sometimes projects like Magnatune or Humble Bundle, where most money goes to the creators.

I give the stuff I don't need to for-free shops.

Everything works pretty well, if you just do it. Not everyone is dumb and brainwashed by now.

Yep, the music of artists, like Brad Sucks, Tryad and hundreds of others can easily compete with commercial stuff.

Edited 2011-12-18 22:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Steps to undermine ACTA
by subsider34 on Tue 20th Dec 2011 05:49 in reply to "RE: Steps to undermine ACTA"
subsider34 Member since:
2010-11-08


First of all, all that copyright and licensing legal "BS" is there to protect the owners rights & interests. It works very well at doing so, but it can't help people who make bad decisions.

Secondly, you can not make a living off of releasing public domain works. Any music who says they don't care about making money with their work is lying to your face -- unless they actually do release their music free-of-charge.

The idea that music should be free is absolutely absurd. I suppose all forms of art should be free as well. Every painting, every poem or piece of written work, movies, everything. People always seem to forget the music business is a BUSINESS FIRST. Products are created with the intent of for-profit sale to consumers. People CHOOSE to participate in this business.

Perhaps, but I would argue that the copyright term needs to be severely curtailed, perhaps down to 20 years (fixed). This would allow authors to reap the rewards of their work, while at the same time preventing them (and their publishers) from smothering innovation long-term.

I understand that many people are opposed to having what they consider their property taken away, but the fact of the matter is Intellectual Property is not, in fact, property. It's the right to monopolize on a work of art. Such a right should be assigned with great reservation and only when it furthers the public good.

This comment has been donated to the public domain. Any allegations to the contrary shall be met with carping criticism, harsh letters, and a good deal of foul language.

Edited 2011-12-20 06:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1