[LINK] Copyright is an artefact designed exclusively to encourage the continuation of a society based on debt

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Welykochy [mailto:rick at praxis.com.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2009 5:13 PM
> To: Tom Koltai
> Cc: 'link'
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Copyright is an artefact designed 
> exclusively to encourage the continuation of a society based on debt
> 
> 
> Tom Koltai wrote:
> 
> > The article is in two parts with part one. 
> > http://www.perceptric.com/blog/_archives/2009/7/22/4263020.html
> > 
> > Part 2 ... 
> > http://www.perceptric.com/blog/_archives/2009/7/23/4264184.html
> 
> Interesting read. Some of it inspired by Zeitgeist the Movie 
> and its sequel.
> 
> Out of curiosity I headed over to YouTube and searched for 
> MasterChef. Wow. P2P is alive and well. Similar can prolly be 
> said about any topic one picks.
> 
> So, Tom, how do we start the revolution?

Rick, we don't have to START the P2P (R)eVolution.
The content companies fired the first shot.
Universities and geeks returned fire.
It would seem that we have escalated from small bore to large cannons.

On the part of the P2P users - PVC's and encryption
On the part of Governments - ACTA and other legislation.
	Plus a gradual move from the civil list to the criminal lists.

What we do need is a reasonable and responsible copyright legislation
that allows for freedom of expression without criminalisation.

The crime appears to be sharing files.
The short term damage is non existent as the file sharing actually
increases the popularity of the artist. (And we now have evidence of
that by publishing the top 50 or so music hits for five weeks. We have
now picked number one from file sharing on P2P 4 weeks out of five, two
to three weeks ahead of the ARIA top fifty.)

The long term damage would appear to be to our economy, by turning
innovation into crime.

Although in the article I included Ripmix (the movie) which would appear
to be a test of the commercialisation of innovative mixing for the
purposes of creating new content.

I consider that our copyright future will be determined by the outcome
of this movie.

Will it be sued or not sued by the content industry.

If it is not sued, that then (precedents), rewrites the meaning of fair
use in favour of a freer, more innovatively productive future. 

If the creators are sent to jail, (highly unlikely), then I see doom and
gloom ahead.

For Australia, although the Government has mandated higher local content
rules on cable and free to air TV, these need to be increased even
further.

I would like to see 50% of broadcast content from local content
creators, 25% from countries other than the USA and only 25% of content
from the USA.

Only by encouraging non-US entertainment content will the world be free
of this method of corralling sheep under the US greenback.


Tom

 


_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.6.4
http://www.iolo.com