aksioma.org Open in urlscan Pro
212.44.112.58  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

agora | sessions | bills | media | background | credits | book

 

 



| [ITA] | [POR] | [SPA] | [SLO] Bill: Copyleft

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DemoKino
Virtual Biopolitical Agora

Copyleft   
movie [wmv]
[pdf]

Check this out. Another lawsuit by record companies brought against music
pirates. Isn't that something, piracy? So, I am a pirate as well! I downloaded
hours and hours of music from Napster while it was there. Now I am doing the
same thing with Vitaminic and other websites. The record companies say this way
of distributing music is damaging to them because it cuts down on CD sales.
Furthermore, they claim it is illegal, because music publishers have to sign
contracts with music authors and pay them for their work, so, basically, when
you buy a CD, you support the artist and not the publisher.

I'm not so sure.

One thing I know is, publishers would never bring out a single record, a book or
a magazine if it wasn't for money. Of course, I agree that the author has to
earn his living with his work, I am not questioning that.

The question is: is selling CDs the only way to support an artist? If things
remain as they are now, the answer is probably positive. So, recognizing the
rights of intellectual property is a just policy to a certain degree. If I am a
musician I should be entitled to make a living with my music, so everyone
playing my music in public owes me something. Therefore: as an author I have the
right to enjoy the fruits of my talent and make a profit from it. Afterwards,
for practical reasons, I transfer my rights to an editor who publishes my
works...books, records, etc...and sees to their distribution - things that I
could not do on my own. In return, the publisher pays me a fixed fee or a share
of the sales.

This is a basic copyright principle and there is very little to objection to it
if things work this way. There are copyright laws that regulate the author's
rights and protect the author as the owner of the copyright.

But, Napster or Vitaminic aren't really violating these rules. No one here takes
possession of someone else's work to sell it or make profit without paying the
author. That is what happens with a pirate videotape, maybe. But in this case
there is a community of people who exchange things already in their possession
...

Wait, let me see if there's any new stuff...
There's this hot piece by Saint Germain that I am about to download just now.

Definitely not from the publisher's website. I'll take it from the hard drive of
someone who has it and is connected to the web. I don't even have to know the
guy. And while I'm downloading, someone else may take advantage of my connection
and download from my hard drive a piece of music he likes.

It's like lending a book or a CD to a friend and borrowing one from him at the
same time. Only in this case, the friends don't know each other.

I am not even so sure whether this Internet exchange really brings down CD
sales. I've read some quite contradictory piece of information. I for one, still
buy CDs, though I download music files from the Internet. Even more so. And even
if that was the case, the Internet is not the only one to blame. The fact is the
record companies are greedy and are selling the CDs at much higher prices than
what they should or could cost.

Many people, particularly younger ones, can't afford to buy them. The Internet
has merely given these people the opportunity to listen to music they like. Who
knows, if the CD prices went down ...maybe this would...

What the heck is wrong now ?!...jammed again!...I'll have to shut it down and
restart it again. And I'll have to repeat the downloading from scratch.

To hell with Microsoft!

I said I would try Linux but I never have time to install it. It is not like
counting to three but my friend Robert tells me it works miracles once it is
installed. He should know, he's an expert. It never gets jammed, it's much more
reliable.

I bet it is!
Thousands must have contributed to that operative system, testing and retesting
again.

It's a perfect way to find all the downsides and the bugs.

Linux is actually a free operative system invented by that Finn, Linus Torvalds,
when he was still a student, ten or maybe twelve years ago. He didn't keep the
programme code secret as happens with all commercial software.

He has made it public by putting it on the net as an open source for hundreds or
thousands of computer programmers to work on it if they felt like it.
They've corrected mistakes, improved the operation, broadened the applications.
Now there is a struggle going on between Linux and other commercial operative
systems, like Windows, to see which one gains more ground. In the field of
network software Linux is ahead for the time being. In other fields, the game is
still on. Clearly, Linux is still lagging behind but apparently heading up.
Since this is an alternative to copyright, they've named it copyleft. It is a
peculiar licence invented by the American founder of the Free Software
Foundation, Richard Stallman, years before Torvalds started writing Linux. It is
called General Public License, GPL, and says everyone is free to copy, modify
and distribute software under that licence as long as they leave the licence
untouched, meaning that others will be able to do what they have done.

I've read about it in this book "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric Raymond.
Of course, I've downloaded the book from the net and printed it.

Maybe the situation with software is a bit different from the one of music. It
seems to me that in this sector copyleft may work better than copyright.
Copyleft has more regard for the exchange of ideas and encourages co-operation,
while copyright just tends to make these things more difficult. Or better,
copyright puts profit above the notion of co-operation.

Just lately, the U.S. and some other countries have prolonged the copyright
duration from what was 50 to now 70 years after the author's death. But it is
true that the problem of repaying the author will have to be answered even in
this case. Alright, no intellectual property, since ideas belong to everyone and
knowledge only grows when it circulates freely.

But what will the authors live on?

After all, even Torvalds and Stallman began working for companies as hired
personnel or as counsellors eventually. And, since the installation of the free
Linux version requires some specific knowledge, there are now easier versions
circulating, for payment.

Yes, they do cost a lot less than Windows or Macintosh, but they are not free of
charge, though they are always covered by the GPL licence.

So, maybe a little copyright is there after all.

All these problems didn't exist some time ago, because there has never been a
more powerful technology of data treatment and distribution than the computer.
Copyright laws emerged when printed media started with mass distribution. Maybe
the time has come to change these laws.

But in what way? Is it better to safeguard intellectual property or
co-operation? The author's rights or the spreading of ideas?

In short: copyright or copyleft?

Antonio Caronia.
DemoKino - Virtual Biopolitical Parliament - Copyleft.

 

  DemoKino - Bills >>>_

  <back | aksioma