folder_open iconLesson5DAMNiT.org

Permalink: http://www.damnit.org/2009-05/Lesson5.jpg/viewhttp://www.damnit.org
Posted by Bryan Andrews | Posted in: External Articles, Syndicated Articles | Comments(0) May 2009

Submit this to... Submit to Digg Submit to Slashdot Submit to del.icio.us Submit to Technorati Submit to Stumble Upon Print this article E-mail this article
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

folder_open iconOh3gXDAMNiT.org

Permalink: http://www.damnit.org/2009-05/Oh3gX.jpg/viewhttp://www.damnit.org
Posted by Bryan Andrews | Posted in: External Articles, Syndicated Articles | Comments(0) May 2009

Submit this to... Submit to Digg Submit to Slashdot Submit to del.icio.us Submit to Technorati Submit to Stumble Upon Print this article E-mail this article
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

folder_open iconWhy Artists Share

Permalink: http://questioncopyright.org/node/320
Posted by ninapaley | Posted in: Syndicated Articles | Comments(0) May 2009

span class='print-link'/spanpAll creators get to decide what happens to our work. We can keep it secret, and not show it to anyone. We can keep it private, and limit access to private parties. Or we can make it public, by publishing it. /p pOnce you've made a work public, it is public. So if you don't want people sharing your work, please, please, keep it secret or private./p pI've often wondered why creators (or corporations) get so upset when the public accesses their work, after they've made it public. If you can't stand people looking at it without your permission, why not keep it locked up in a vault somewhere? No one's forcing you to publish; why insist on doing so, and then claim to be victimized by your own audience?/p pThe answer is that a work has little or no value unless it's shared. The more people take it in, the more valuable it becomes. A work has no cultural value except what the audience gives it. In other words, A WORK'S VALUE COMES FROM THE AUDIENCE./p pa href=http://questioncopyright.org/node/320 target=_blankread more/a/p
Submit this to... Submit to Digg Submit to Slashdot Submit to del.icio.us Submit to Technorati Submit to Stumble Upon Print this article E-mail this article
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

folder_open iconBreaking the bargain: copyright extensions are unfair to artists too.

Permalink: http://questioncopyright.org/breaking_the_bargain
Posted by ninapaley | Posted in: Syndicated Articles | Comments(0) May 2009

span class='print-link'/spanpThought for the day:/p pWhen the copyright industry lobbies for extensions to already-long copyright terms, they always present it as a way of giving the artists of the past their duenbsp;mdash;nbsp;as a further protection of the moral rights that artists have in their creations./p pBut consider this: many artists of the past were forced to sign over their copyrights in order to work at all. They may have taken comfort in the fact that copyright would expire after a set time, and in knowing that people would eventually be able to share their work freely. Today, when copyright terms are continually extended, we should stop and wonder if these extensions go emagainst/em the wishes of the works' dead creators. Few artists of the 1920's or 30's had the option of saying, I want people to share my work, but they at least knew that copyrights would expire after 28 yearsnbsp;mdash;nbsp;if the terms had been left alone, that isnbsp;mdash;nbsp;and this may have made a temporary lockup more acceptable to them./p pa href=http://questioncopyright.org/breaking_the_bargain target=_blankread more/a/p
Submit this to... Submit to Digg Submit to Slashdot Submit to del.icio.us Submit to Technorati Submit to Stumble Upon Print this article E-mail this article
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 2 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...