Apparently some silly USians want to extend copyright again:

Repeating my Twitter reaction:

When will musicians realize that their biggest competitor is ALL THE PAST RECORDINGS EVER and revolt against this madness?

The Internet is not what makes music hard work. Never was! It's competing with Elvis & Mozart.

Demand the right to build on the past, not compete with it.

@jankoekepan @HerraBRE great!

Then speak up! Let politicians and the public know about your view. It would make activists jobs so much easier.


All this is new to me... I thought copyright of creative work to safeguard something an artist created was a good thing... It stops plagiarism that not the case...

Please can you point me to some links where I can read more on this topic and be better informed while making up my own mind.

@HerraBRE @jankoekepan

@techbolt @HerraBRE @jankoekepan so... I would say read Cory Doctorow's stuff on BoingBoing and elsewhere. That's a good place to start.

Here's a few old texts of mine on the subject, too. Not even close to being in the same league as Cory's writing, obviously, but contain a lot of sources:


I just read the three blog entries. Thanks for that and as usual wonderfully written indeed.

I think I understand most of the concerns from what you have on the blog. However, I am struggling to get my head around one thing - What as per this school of thought is position on copyright with a limited term - Is it a complete no no or is it just that corporations are making it impossible for a work of art to come into public domain even long after the original creator has passed away and that must be tackled?

If latter, is it not common practice that copyrights are sold and ownerships transferred so as to ensure creator gets to keep the royalty which he/she rightfully deserved and is fully entitled to pass on to his coming generation or for the cause he/she truly believed in?

As a creator (and I am not one by a long long shot) what would be my motivation to continue giving entertainment to the society if anyone can steal my work and claim the fame and money that follows that fame?

@jankoekepan @HerraBRE

@techbolt @rysiek @jankoekepan I'll just turn that around. Why in the world should anyone get paid forever, for work they did once?

There are many problems in the arts world that make it hard for people to demand a decent wage. I am aware of this, which is why I concede that some form of limited copyright is even worth considering.

But once that wage has been earned, I don't see any ethical argument for continued payments, let alone restrictions on the thoughts and creativity of others.

I agree that getting work in public domain is good but for someone to create they need to be motivated and I can imagine perpetual monetary returns are as good as they get... I would be motivated by something like that -right or wrong comes later - motivation to create comes first and that to my simplistic mind appears to be prompted by this high return more often than I on wrong end of the stick here?

If I am not, then the right answer would be to keep up the motivation to create and keep the greed in check - somewhat like tax process. I have to give tax on what I earn so perhaps the time limit to copyright must have the hard stop as a way of community imposed rule rather than an expectation that a creator will willingly part from a benefit...

I mean tax is imposed because rarely anyone will be willingly paying tax unless it is imposed by the law so I can see a good reason to support a time limiting law but to expect creators or artists to support that law might be expecting too much from mere mortals.

@jankoekepan @rysiek

@techbolt @HerraBRE @jankoekepan if I were receiving "perpetual monetary returns" on my old work, and if I were motivated by money, why would I ever create anything new?

If I were not motivated by money, why would "perpetual monetary returns" be a good idea?

However you cut it "perpetual monetary returns" do not make sense.

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 1
That's true...hence the retirement and beyond... retirement turns to early retirement if the earnings are sufficient to cover the lifestyle which is merely a word for not creating anything new because person who is into retirement isn't working...

Now most of the people I have met so far in my life do aspire for an early retirement...

Having said that I do get the negatives of the system of copyright ... I want to read more about what copyreforms propose to address the negatives while keeping the goods....😀
@jankoekepan @HerraBRE

@techbolt @jankoekepan @HerraBRE we're not talking about retirement -- retirement is when you have enough money already, or if the government provides you a pension.

We're talking still receiving payments on something you did 20, 30, 50 years ago. I do not see how this makes sense. Especially that for the most popular works it's not the authors who are receiving the payments! It's corporate owners.


Oh my did not know all this... that is really bad ...if the artists are not getting anything then yes it is a racket indeed... but it's a bit difficult to reconcile this with reality where successful artists do have big mansions and such... don't get me wrong I don't envy them...on the contrary I think they deserve a good life for the work they have done...bit if they have not got the most and instead labels have been siphoning off their really is an unfair system that needs the reform...

@HerraBRE @jankoekepan


David Bolliers podcast/lecture series about the commons covers this stuff from an interesting alternative critical perspective.

IIRC The episodes about copyright and academia cover this. The others are also well worth a listen.

@jankoekepan @rysiek @HerraBRE

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!