marius schebella on Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:58:47 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> A citizen response to the recent attacks on freedoms in the name of intellectual property

I am still quite new to this list, I have not seen many responses to 
postings, so I am not sure, if there is room at all for a discussion?
I'd like to comment on some of the 7 demands...

simona.conservas.innmotion wrote:

> 3. That artists be paid equally and fairly, whether or not they are 
> members of royalty management associations. That artists, if they wish, 
> be paid mainly for their actual creative work, not for the explotation 
> it generates.

?? not sure what you are referring to here. some monthly income? why 
should all artists be paid equally? who defines what an 'artist' is? and 
by whom should they be paid? by the government? are artists better than 
other people so that they are elegible to receive money, but other 
working people not? all humans should be paid equally and fairly in 
regard to their work, no?

a creative sound artist's income (other than the basic income for social 
reasons) will come from live performances, from composing soundtracks 
for film or gaming industry, from royalties if a song is played on radio 
or television or maybe in a (dance)club (any commercial environment). Or 
by signing a contract with live nation or one of the big players of the 
entertainment industry, like the manufacturers of computers, portables, 
mobile devices, or cable companies, telecom and networking companies and 
all other companies that rely on "content" to sell their products). 
besides that, if people agree to honor cultural values ('actual creative 
work', as you call it) that can still be covered by budgets for artist 
fellowships, grants, governmental cultural sponsorings.
Selling traditional sound storage media or selling music online could 
survive because of higher sound quality or, maybe, accessibility.

besides that artists will have to live from 1000 other things, like 
advertisement contracts (covering related staredom outgrowth like 
creating fashion lines or cosmetics.) or teaching.

> 5. That the periods in which works become part of the Public Domain 
> benefit creativity and society. Allowing more than one generation to 
> live from somebody's work is a way of encouraging parasitism and 
> creative stagnancy. It deactivates reinvestment and instead of favour 
> people, as it was designed to do, it ends up benefiting mainly large 
> multinational companies that distort the original work. We ask that work 
> becomes public domain within a reasonable period of time, according to 
> the kind of work, with a maximum of 30 years.

what? 7, 5, 3, 2 years, even 1 year seems more appropriate to me.

> 6. The defence of the "right to quote" as a vehicle for democratic 
> expansion of the information society.

I would say we need legal arrangements not only for quoting but for 
everything that goes under "fair use": educational context, derivative 
work... as well as everything that is for private use.


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info:
#  archive: contact: