For hundreds of years, publishers across every industry ??? book publishers, record labels, film studios, videogame publishers ??? solved problems for artists in four major ways:
- Funding. The cost of creating a new work, paying the artist’s expenses during the creation process, often with an advance.
- Production. Design, manufacturing, and printing of the finished product.
- Marketing. Going on tour, making a video, promotion in various media outlets.
- Distribution. Getting the product into people’s hands.
And how does this play out now?
Piers provided a rare moment of insight when he recently admitted that banning assault weapons ???will not solve the gun crime problem in America??? ??? and he captured the myopic authoritarianism of his breed perfectly when he immediately added that Americans should do it anyway. Why? Because they can and they must. It???s the right thing to do. Better than that, it???s what the British would do.
But the Maori Language Commission (MLC) was concerned that the creation of culture cannot be done in an ad hoc fashion and needs to be carefully managed.
“I would like them to have some sort of sense of the translations coming from a Maori cultural perspective,” said Te Haumihiata Mason, language services manager at the MLC.
“The MLC should be the caretakers and keepers of the Maori lexicon.”
Managed culture, doesn’t sound vital to me.
Best response: “A £2-a-month levy on automobiles could save our horse and cart business.”
Next of course, a levy to save: The recording industry, the movie industry, TV, Radio, schools… pretty soon, all the savings the Internet promised will be spent saving the past.
THURSDAY 12 July 2012, 6pm-7pm at NetHui 2012, SkyCity Convention Centre
Creative Commons licences are an important aspect of wider movements facing our tertiary sector: Open Access to research outputs, and Open Education Resources. Academics have seen international tensions between the drive to make publicly funded research available to taxpayers, and the traditionally closed models of the publishing industry. There is also an urgent push to lower the cost of producing educational materials, and providing free access to them online for public consumption.
Not only are these authors eschewing traditional publishing, they???re eschewing digital publishing outside of their own communities. They made their own fandom spaces, and then they made their own publishing houses within those spaces. These women weren???t satisfied with the options modern publishing gives them (oh, gee, I wonder why)???but it turns out that they don???t need modern publishing in order to be successful. As reader ???Wildwood??? comments on the Daily Beast:
The article points out a phenomenon that I see happening across all areas of artistic endeavor, which is the marginalization of the ???suit???. In the past, there has always been a solid wall of judges ??? in the form of editors, publishers, producers, agents, etc ??? who decide what will be offered up for public consumption. Their decisions were not always correct, nor were they always made purely or ethically. The internet takes out the middle-man decision makers and allows artists to put their work directly into the consuming public hand???. For the first time, nobody is in control of what we are offered except ourselves and the artists who create it!
Perhaps a better way to view the data is as an illustration of how mobile phones in general, and texting in particular, have taken over the experiential world of the young. An economist might expect that teens deprived of texting would simply substitute another method of communication – – talking, for instance. As it turns out, a significant minority will not. They will behave instead, researchers report, the way people do when deprived of human contact.
So, what is copyright???s future?
Copyright is an unethical anachronism. It still works as a weapon with which to threaten or punish infringers (with or without evidence), but even with draconian enforcement, the monopoly has ended.
When privileged immortal corporations collide with a population naturally at liberty, the latter will prevail, however draconian their ???education??? by the former.
Nevertheless, without copyright, natural rights remain, e.g. an author???s exclusive right to their writings, truth in authorship, etc.
Moreover, the market for intellectual work can continue quite happily without a reproduction monopoly. Indeed, it will thrive.
But I had to laugh when I read this, “Copyright is a historical accident, a legislative error made in a less principled era.”
Does Crosbie believe there is a less principled era than the current one with respect to the grotesque cancerous enlargement of “rights” for the few?