 |
New Civilization News: Copyright |
Category: Publishing 11 comments 29 Dec 2005 @ 04:34 by vibrani : I am so notwith you on this, sorry. As an author and artist, I do copyright my work and for good reason. I am the one who did the work, not anyone else; it is my original creation that I do share, but it is copyrighted. I respect myself and my work, and I respect others and their copyrights. If you respect creative people and their creations, whether it's art, something written, music, an invention, you will respect copyright. I offer this article to you and if you feel like commenting on it, do so. {http://www.vibrani.com/paradigm.htm} Changing a Paradigm. 29 Dec 2005 @ 06:17 by indrax @208.28.179.147 : Interesting article Thanks vibrani (for clarity, did you write that?) I don't really have a problem with spiritual teachers making money, my problem is with copyright itself. It turns something that is inherently abundant into something scarce. There are ways to make money as a writer without copyright. Why do you copyright your work? In my mind, just because I created something, that does not give me the right to stop other people from copying it. I don't respect copyright. I might like a work, and admire the creator, but when they copyright something, they are doing something they don't have a right to. I do not respect copyright in the same capacity as I do not respect gambling. 29 Dec 2005 @ 08:59 by vibrani : Indrax Yes, I wrote that...that's my web site. Copyright doesn't turn an item into scarcity. As you see, on my site that is free to all to read, people even ask permission to have my articles on their site and I have given permission for that, people can share as long as the copyright information and the complete articles remains intact. That is not a lot to ask of others. Articles by authors are copyrighted and yet they come out in books, or on cds, or online - all costs money to publish. I don't copyright just FOR money. That's a by-product, should I choose to do so, and I do in some cases. I copyright because whatever I did came to and through me. It is my creation and yes, I claim credit for that. And because I do know that we are all One, I share it, and I can make money off of it, too, but I don't hide it and keep it from others because I feel the information is important to share. If you had a special skill as a great doctor, or as a lawyer, or a physical therapist, or accountant, or teacher, would you do everything for free in this world? Not even indigenous medicine people do that all of the time. How would you survive? You spent years in school to develop your craft, you paid for your training, you put in years perfecting it as best you could, and then just hand it to everyone for free? Yes, they have a right to charge, so do I or anyone else who has a skill or creates something. And that's still sharing it, while it has our original stamp on it. By the way, copying something that has been copyrighted and claiming you wrote it is a crime and prosecutable. Copying it for your personal use, might not be - depending on where you got the item. Just because someone creates something it doesn't mean they HAVE to do anything with it for anyone else. That's free will, isn't it? Then, there are people, perhaps like you, who do not respect another person and what they've done, and you'll do whatever you want to. Maybe that's the person's need to control, maybe it's spite, or anger, or greed, or jealousy (all of it resistance) - whatever it might be. And you'd be the one to figure out why you disrespect what someone tells you up-front and requests for their generosity of sharing something with you, when they don't have to. Gratitude is very important in life. Think about energy. I feel that if you read something that YOU KNOW is copyrighted and/or is for sale because it's spelled out for you, and you defy that, you do not feel for another person, you do not wish to be responsible or give thanks for what that person has done...you want to TAKE, not give, not share, yourself. It's being hypocritical, and even more than that. It's intentionally trying to abuse someone. If you go to a site, for instance, that tells you what's what and you don't like it - go somewhere else is my suggestion. There is a great line in a movie that came out in 2000 - excellent film called "Saving Grace" that says something like this: "If you have to commit a crime in order to get something you want, then maybe you weren't meant to have that thing." Exactly right, because if someone believes they are in lack they can't possibly manifest anything other than believing the only way to have something is by stealing it from someone else. However, the catch here is that they are only stealing from themselves. Now, if you connect to the Source, you can get the same information. And if and when it comes through you, you will have your unique imprint upon it, your style, your work that you put into it. It is your creation. Why deny that what you are and what you've created? You can then copyright it, if you wish to. When I purchase something I consider to be helpful to me, I joyfully pay for it because it's helping me in some way, and that will help others, and so on. It is my way of saying thank you to the author. That way we support each other, too, it creates a positive flow of energy. The only thing I don't understand is when news sites copyright their articles and refuse to let anyone share them or republish them, even with them being intact with the copyright info there. News does belong to everybody and no one sharing it can sell it to anyone else. This is not at all akin to gambling for me. I don't understand your connecting the two. How do you support yourself financially? 30 Dec 2005 @ 00:12 by jerryvest : It's not always a choice about copyrights. I have worked in universities and colleges for many years and if we wish to continue teaching, we must make a contribution to our profession. When we do research or write an article, it is reviewed by several people to determine if it meets the standards or expectations of the professional journal. If the article is accepted, the journal requires that you sign a statement that it belongs to them and can not be reproduced without 'their' permission. Anyway, I suspect if this process did not exist, others would just steal or borrow the material and call it their own. I guess that even with these copyright laws, unethical persons still do not credit the source of the information or research. Thus, it is difficult to build on the knowledge or even replicate it if there are no rules. Don't you think that with the advent of The Internet, all of these copyrighted materials will eventually be freely distributed or disclosed? 30 Dec 2005 @ 00:56 by bushman : Hmm If the information saves lives or make the world a better place, then it must be dropped as copywriten leaflets, on all forms of media, Oh im sorry you cant run that copywriten CPR information, only the news media in that specific town can read it and tell you about it, you have to pay to save the world and people, didnt you guys know that, fine them Dano. 30 Dec 2005 @ 06:50 by indrax : Zeroth Quick note to jerryvest: I know there is a movment among scientists to start open web based peer-reviewed journals. They either let you keep the copyright, or take it and put the article under an open license. I believe there are some in operation, when I am more awake I will try to find it. (I actually wrote this after the rest of the post.) Vibrani: You make some good arguments. First off, copying a work and claiming credit for it are two very different things. plaigiarism is inherently dishonest, and I do not support it in any way. I believe in giving credit where it is due. Secondly, I fully support creators being paid for their work, but copyright is not the only way to acomplish that. Copyright gets people money in exchange for copies, it turns artists into publishers. Instead of wanting to write more articles or make more music, the incentive is to sell more copies. Publishers have a place, but an artist doesn't have to be (or use) a publisher. The Street Performer Protocol is one way an artist can request payment directly for doing work. There is infinite room for variations to suit different needs, but the basic idea is that an artist with some reputation asks his or her fans to meet a price for the artist's next work. This directly rewards the time, effort and skill of the artist, which ARE naturally scarce. I really wish it were more common to have a pay to pay the artist directly, without so much money going through a record company. Normally, copyright does create scarcity when the item is charged for. I will grant you that this effect is greatly reduced when the item is under a free license, and i do give you a lot of credit for that. My original post didn't adequately take into account the copyrighted-but-free situation. There is still some artificial scarcity with a licence like yours though. I could take the Bible (a public domain version), and insert my own commentary every few paragraphs, and this could be a useful thing for many people. I could also translate the Bible, or just make an easier to read version, or condense it. (Indeed, many people do, and they own their version of 'God's word' which they then shrinkwrap and sell.) I can't make any derivative works from your articles, and that is another form of artificial scarcity. Copyright violation is civilly prosecutable, but only criminal if done for profit. That is why the few individual filesharers are getting sued instead of going to jail. Of course, the law does not dictate morality anyway. When a person creates something, it is true that they do not have to publish it. They can keep it private.(And I would support stronger privacy laws, to protect against unintentional 'publishing') But once they put it in the public view, the information is as much mine as theirs. Countless songs flow through my mind, is my mind not mine? My free will does not extend to controlling what you do with the book I wrote. Then, there are people, perhaps like you Thank you for adding that 'perhaps' many are not so careful. I do respect artists, but I do copy. Copying a published work is not abusing anyone, because they are not worse off than if I had not copied. I do recieve, but I do not TAKE. I am willing to pay in order to recieve, and pay more to fund future works, but I am not willing to needlessly limit the spread of information. Note also: I realize that a whole economy is built around copyright, and people depend on this system, but that does not make it right. I do support a gradual transition away from copyright. (now I'm getting political though, and that's not my intent.) I do respect artists, but I do copy. I am motivated by the desire to use the information. I like the music. I think it's funny that you bring up a need to control, couldn't the same argument be made about the artist telling people how they can use the work? Different sides of the same coin, eh? maybe it's spite, or anger, or greed, or jealousy (all of it resistance) I don't personally relate to any of these as motivations for copying. When I copy, I do not believe I am in lack, I have the information, or I have access to it. I wish only to freely use the information that I have. (free as in freedom, not as in price.) When you copyright something, you are telling me what I can't do with something I've read or heard or seen. I don't think that creates a positive flow of energy. I'm against gambling, my point was just that I don't need to respect everything a person does to respect the person. 30 Dec 2005 @ 08:09 by vibrani : Indrax thank you for your very thoughtful response and comments about what I wrote to you. Of course, I was aware from day one of putting my stuff out on the internet that people would copy, but I do have a notices on my site about the copyright and how I work it, and so forth. I am not like some people who have sites that require visitors to pay before they can read anything. I don't like that kind of gig. I put my message on my site and appeal (I hope) to the higher morals in people lol. Sort of the honor system. If I get screwed, then they'll hear from me. There have been some interesting cases throughout the past ten years, though. Some people who claimed copyright and wanted their stuff on my site - turned out they stole someone else's material and that author and their lawyers, with my help, tracked down the guy and the author and publishers and lawyers seemed satisfied with whatever resulted from that. I am also a publisher, so I write and publish and publish on my site for others. When I wrote assumptions about you, it was only assumptions made from what you wrote. I don't know you, so I had to say "perhaps." Give you the benefit first, ya know. I'm glad to read that you are willing to pay in order to receive. I do agree that there could be better plans out there for payments to artists. Reminds me - you might like an article about the recording industry {http://www.vibrani.com/musiceditorial.htm} On control - yeah, sure, why shouldn't we be in control of our own lives and our own creations? It is true that we can write and copyright our material and not share it. Then who or what is that for, I wonder? Some future time when we're all dead? When I copyright something it means it is registered with the Library of Congress as my work. It doesn't mean you can't use the info you've read in it. In fact, my material is just for that purpose - decide for yourself if it makes sense to you and use what works for you. If not, don't use it. Be discerning. 25 Jul 2006 @ 02:22 by Lee Travathan @24.251.206.85 : Copyright As a freelance writer and author of several books, I feel it is important to copyright just to be sure your words are not turned into something that you did not say or mean. I've had work stolen and turned into pretty sad and ugly stuff because I did not "set it in stone", so to speak. And let's face it - spiritual people deserve to earn a living the same way any other writer does. You go to a job and you get a paycheck for your time, application, skill or talent. Why shouldn't we and why would it make anyone sad when we do is beyond me to understand without much deeper conversation. It seems nieve to think that we are more valueable because we have a gift and yet not valueable enough to be protected from theft or paid for it. Hey, spiritual writers gotta eat too! 29 Apr 2016 @ 13:40 by Bandar Togel @103.12.162.4 : brilliant! I would like to share this ar Togel Online Singapore Togel Online Hongkong Bandar Togel Singapore Bandar Togel Togel Online Terpercaya Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya Togel Online Agen Togel Online Terpercaya Agen Togel Online 4 Feb 2017 @ 09:58 by riya sharma @103.55.109.22 : very impressive and powerful alzerf pet classified india 4 Feb 2017 @ 10:01 by amit @103.55.109.22 : wonderful blog livestock Other entries in Publishing 20 Dec 2005 @ 07:24: Web books and publishing 28 Jan 2005 @ 14:36: Hombré
|