copyright
Apr 4 2006 17:49
(The following was originally addressed to john hence the personal tone. Whatever i come up with will eventually be converted into a something for @ media be it organise or whatever. This is a case of me forcing my course to be about something i'd be researching anyway rather than a project set for me.)
I am doing a project for my university course (you have probably stopped reading at this point) around the issue of copyright; we are supposed to look at an issue of political interest then use 3 'key concepts' to analyse it. Bizarrely 'anarchism' is a key concept, like 'democracy' and 'justice' - socialism, conservatism, communism, liberalism are not though.
Who should i speak to in regards to doing an interview about:
- the anarchist view on copyright/property
- what anarchists are doing arround this issue (free media, hacklabs etc.)
- some general views on and around the issue as it stands now, the prosecution of p2p downloaders, the 'pirating' of essential drugs by 3rd wrld, the copyrighting of DNA...
let me know who could answer these questions and esp. if there is any active involvement by @ around the issue (is linux or that penguin thing at all @...? I'm not much of a computer person.). Is the Hacklabs thing still going? If you want to do an interview, it will be credited to libcom of course.
Apr 4 2006 18:49
#2
ooh thanks!
no wots slashdot and what is 2600?
i'll have alook at those links, ta mate have an 
++
Apr 4 2006 18:53
#3
slashdot is a technology and society forum and 2600 is a hacker organization that publishes a magazine, called 2600. 2600 would be your best bet for a primary text sources.
Apr 4 2006 19:10
#4
dude autonome is crimethinc with slightly better politics. Just had a cursory glance at their preamble. Like some of the posters tho.
Apr 4 2006 19:10
#5
wall posters not 4m posters i stress.
Apr 4 2006 19:14
#6
Autonome isn't what i was referring you to. Email the guy who runs the site.
Apr 4 2006 19:28
#7
If you like some historical references, here is a paper about individualist anarchist copyright debate from the 1880's:
Apr 4 2006 19:43
#8
wow. the individualist anarchists were writing about the internet and its effects on copyright in the 1880s but Al Gore hadn't invented it yet!
Apr 4 2006 20:32
#9
should look at copyleft, which is a precursor to gnu public license, open-source, free-software, creative commons etc.
linux (the penguin thing) varies between companies with business models, to stuff like debian which is all volunteers and I think completely non-profit.
There's a cool copyleft statement in some pamphlets that reads "free to use and distribute but not by capitalists" or something to that effect.
Apr 4 2006 20:50
#10
I love the gnu license. Its an anti-capitialist meme-virus. It infects what ever it touches. Its great.
Apr 4 2006 23:00
#11
You can interview me if you'd like, I got my start in activism on copyright issues ~5 years ago and I've been peripherally involved in two free software projects. My knowledge of copyright law and theory is probably as good as you're going to get out of any anarchist. PM me if you're interested.
Regardless, read "Anarchism Triumphant" by Eben Moglen of the Free Software Foundation. http//emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html
Apr 4 2006 23:04
#12
Tacks - why not approach different groups within the 'scene' who produce stuff, esp. publishers and ask them for their ideas. Check out whats said on this thread for eg:
Apr 4 2006 23:17
#13
PS
Quote:
the 'pirating' of essential drugs by 3rd wrld, the copyrighting of DNA
These are patent issues, not copyright issues. You can't copyright DNA or drugs, only patent them. It's a big difference- copyright covers creative works and lasts something like 70 years after the creator's death (they extend it every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain). Patents cover inventions and last for 20 years.
Apr 5 2006 00:26
#14
We're trying to do research into Free Culture over at MOAK47.info, check us out. If you're interested e-mail us for a collaboration.
Apr 5 2006 12:03
#15
AnarchoAl wrote:
PSQuote:
the 'pirating' of essential drugs by 3rd wrld, the copyrighting of DNAThese are patent issues, not copyright issues. You can't copyright DNA or drugs, only patent them. It's a big difference- copyright covers creative works and lasts something like 70 years after the creator's death (they extend it every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain). Patents cover inventions and last for 20 years.
oh right, i see... How do they keep some things out of the pb. dom. btw?
Surely shit like Elvis is going to be free relatively soon, 20 years or so?
and thanks i'd love to interview you. i'm justr @ work atm, but i'll pm you about this later.
Apr 5 2006 12:05
#16
This man not like bolivia?
Apr 5 2006 12:09
#17
milli u possibly missed my replies on ur thread?
Apr 8 2006 15:53
#18
Tacks wrote:
milli u possibly missed my replies on ur thread?
Yup. Was it slander or libel?
milli
Apr 10 2006 11:05
#19
i put a copyright notice on all my material on my website in the hope it might deter profiteers from ripping it off for their own profit.
(a friend and I had an article we wrote that as posted on the web ages ago ripped off by a commercial magazine - they normally paid contributors but we didn't get a penny. so now i make the position clear.)
i do however welcome the use of the material by non-profit purposes
Apr 10 2006 11:38
#20
MalFunction wrote:
i put a copyright notice on all my material on my website in the hope it might deter profiteers from ripping it off for their own profit.(a friend and I had an article we wrote that as posted on the web ages ago ripped off by a commercial magazine - they normally paid contributors but we didn't get a penny. so now i make the position clear.)
i do however welcome the use of the material by non-profit purposes
have a look at creative commons - they'll probably have a licence that suits you better than plain old copyright. I suppose its saying "here's some free use-value but you ain't extracting no surplus-value" 
Apr 13 2006 13:19
#21
Tacks wrote:
This man not like bolivia?
It was during the protests there. It is supporting bolivian protests.
hope this helps.
-milli
Apr 13 2006 13:36
#22
Here's a summary of UK copyright law http//www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
70 years for literary works, 50 for musical. So any music whose creator died before 1956 is out of copyright in the UK. For literature, it's death before 1936.
The one exception is Peter Pan. For as long as there is a Great Ormond Street hospital, they get all Peter Pan royalties.
Apr 13 2006 14:38
#23
I remember once seeing a Tolstoy book that on the first page where they'd normally have the copyright bit said that it wasn't copyright and explained that he'd done this deliberately because he didn't believe in it. Can't remember the book though sorry.
Apr 17 2006 10:11
#24
AnarchoAl wrote:
Here's a summary of UK copyright law: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law70 years for literary works, 50 for musical. So any music whose creator died before 1956 is out of copyright in the UK. For literature, it's death before 1936.
The one exception is Peter Pan. For as long as there is a Great Ormond Street hospital, they get all Peter Pan royalties.
shurely not shir! What about the 'estate' of authors? You know, the people who gt the royalties for works long after the death - i'm alawys hearing about how the Estate of author X does not want to allowa a movie to be made of X's work or is sueing someone for copyright...
otherwise whats to stop me printing copies of Pride and Prejudice and selling them?*
*legally i mean. Logistically i have better things to do.
Apr 17 2006 12:04
#25
There is nothing legally stopping anyone from printing and selling copies of Pride and Prejudice. Just go ahead.
Apr 17 2006 12:33
#26
How do you think those Penguin £1 classics work?
Apr 17 2006 22:26
#27
Tacks wrote:
What about the 'estate' of authors? You know, the people who gt the royalties for works long after the death - i'm alawys hearing about how the Estate of author X does not want to allowa a movie to be made of X's work or is sueing someone for copyright...
The estate has control as long as the copyright holds. It depends who controls the estate, apparently the really shite marple/poirot on ITV recently is down to the death of AC's niece or something who blocked stuff that changed too much.
Apr 18 2006 01:04
#28
Jef's right. So for example, JRR Tolkein died in 1973. So his estate (essentially his son, Christopher Tolkein), owns the copyright on the Lord of the Rings until 2043. Chris has been more than happy to make a fortune off of this.
Of course the copyright period could easily be extended by parliament between now and 2043. As previously mentioned, it usually gets extended whenver Mickey Mouse is on the verge of going out of copyright. Currently he should be public domain in the UK by 2036 (Disney died in '66; films are protected for 70 years), but I'd put good money on that not happening.
Apr 18 2006 06:17
#29
Most films are also generally made under the umbella of company specially set up for the purpose, this company serves as the author to keep the films in copyright permanently. It also means that the copyright can be sold and transferred and that films can be used as assets in case of financial difficulty.
Apr 18 2006 07:01
#30
Jef Costello wrote:
Most films are also generally made under the umbella of company specially set up for the purpose, this company serves as the author to keep the films in copyright permanently. It also means that the copyright can be sold and transferred and that films can be used as assets in case of financial difficulty.
Are you sure about this? I can't find any information stating that the copyright will be permanent, or that a company can be considered an author.
anarcho-geeks you can talk to:
flint@nefac.net and the guy who runs www.autonome.org
Plus I think there is an anarchist caucus in 2600
Have you been to slashdot?