This topic was very interesting and hot topic for me. Since writer’s 3months strike in LA just ended, I was curious about how copyright works. Like Dallas Weaver mentioned in his article “Copyright this,” writers work for money, and if they do not receive appropriate payment, then they need to be. However, the idea why they had strike was strongly related to online distribution of their work, however, the way they end up the strike did not show how they apply to this topic. I’m not sure if they meant free online distribution or production online distribution. I think it’s not possible to ignore this fast growing online distribution unless they find out good way to cooperate. Online information distribution is huge part of culture in nowadays. Anyway, this end of strike made me wonder what copyright really means. In the article, “Copyright, CopyLeft, and the Creative Anti-Commons” made me think a lot. I did not know there is idea like anti-copyright, copyleft, Creative Commons. It is true that copyright of any intangible works become obstacles to expand culture. It is up to the creaters if they encourage expanding culture or keep their work on their own. And, when they use “copyleft,” “Creative Commons” as such, I think it is important to receive the intention of creaters’ work appropriately. If I was an artist, I wonder what I would put next to my work.
ryanburmeister
February 26th, 2008 at 1:10 am
I was very intrigued by the ideas of Copyleft and the movement to push “copy rights” to a form that is free and maintained as free. I thought it was also interesting the contrast made between piracy, and digital piracy on the internet. Coincidentally — and on a side note — I find it both hilarious and ironic that Disney’s largest franchise in its history is Pirates of the Caribbean.
“Copyright, Copyleft, and the Creative Anti-Commons” is a great article that explores the ideas from historical perspectives to modern views. As someone who bittorrents files, it is nice to see a connection, especially in the aspects that cover the former utilitarian copying of books in the pre-Revolution days of America. I am a poor student, and I benefit greatly from my ability to acquire information and software to increase my skill set without charge.
Stephanie Sorth
February 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Before reading “Copyright, Copyleft, and the Creative Anti-Commons”, I had no idead what copyleft was, and that there was even such a word. Unlike copyright, copyleft allows an author to keep some rights and give every person with permission to reproduce, adapt, or distribute the work. The licenses of open contents are an important part for the enhancement of open ideas. Copyleft provides users the chances to modify, transform, recast the work without infringement of copyright.
I also thinks it’s interesting when Dallas Weaver talks about Mickey Mouse vs. E=MC2. It raises an important question on the fact about what should be copyrighted, what is copyrighted, and what can be copyrighted. Where should we draw the line?
Daphne
February 27th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I really enjoyed the Copyright Copyleft article. I liked how the author pointed out that copyright is only a recent invention, and that laws concerning art in the past really weren’t prevalent. It wasn’t a big deal to have art accredited for. I think its harder to be an artist now than it was in the past. With all the paperwork and business that goes along with art nowadays, its hard just to enjoy creating art for the pleasure of it. But then again, if art is your passion, you’ll always find a way to balance the work and the pleasure, am I right? I’d like to think so.
Evan Caminiti
February 27th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Nimus brings up some very thought provoking questions. I definitely grew up until about age 16 or so believing in the romantic notion of the artist as a genius, his or her illuminating qualities springing from the inside out. I suppose you could say I bought into cultural conditioning or stereotypes, it took awhile to for me to think as I do now, believing the artist serves as a conduit for the energy around them and the unique perspectives that people possess, or unique combination of influences, when combined with other “external” factors, is what can potentially produce thought-provoking or otherwise beautiful, interesting art. The notion of property in western culture is another interesting thing Nimus discusses. My thoughts went to the ordeals surrounding colonization and how Native Americans had never really seen a fence until Europeans came overseas. When you approach the issue from a different paradigm, the notion of property really does seem absurd. Also, “ideas are viral” is a really great statement. Similarly, Weaver’s “Copyright This”, points out that in the scheme of things copyrights can do more bad than good. Psychologically speaking, the ideas that come with copyrighting are socially detrimental. The “looking out for number 1” ideal that is implied along with capitalist culture definitely doesn’t foster any kind of positive community-based action. Whether this is “the man” intentionally trying to oppress the people on a grassroots level by making them competitors instead of collaborators is still up to debate as far as I see. Copyright taxes which would revert products/ideas/whatever to public domain seem like a great idea though.
Jennytam
February 27th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
like Stephanie, i didn’t know what a copyleft was - i thought it had something to do with politics (technically it does, but it’s more for the legal than the politics). in reading “Copyright” by anna nimus (or is that “anonymous”?…could be wrong about that, but you must wonder…) the youtube short from the earlier class kept playing in my mind (”the - copy! - right? -…..”) and i went back to watch it (again). then i noticed another entry in the youtube “list of semi-related” items titled “the disney trap: how copyright steals our ideas”. this video covered some of the same areas “Fair(y) Use Tail” covered, such as the limitations of a copyright in the early years up to about 2006 (when the short was made). however, it also brought up a point from “Copyright” - the copyleft. it was brief, and not explicitly explained, but it was there in this over acted, badly-lit piece. it also brought up a reason on maybe why the copyright went from 50 to 70 years via Mrs. Disney”.
Mr. Weaver’s bit “Copyright This” brings up some practical ideas on the problem of over copyrighting something that has fallen in inherent value (like newspaper bits). i wonder if he had a double meaning to “mickey mouse category”, on one hand, it is the most notorious for following its copyrights to the letter; on the other, it can also mean “not going anywhere/not doing anything important”. i wonder which it is
cassandra
February 28th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Cassandra Sechler
02-28-08
Al of the articles made me ponder the concept of ideas as property and the absurdity of this. What I liked about the “Intellectual Property Myth” article was how it mentioned that creative works were made before I.P. and will be made after it is dispelled as well– copyright laws don’t necessarily motivate creative works, they stunt them. Like Nimus notes in “Copyright/Copyleft,” John Oswald’s motto was: “if creativity is a field, copyright is the fence.” I really like this quote and how it presents a metaphor of the confinements of copyright.
I agree with the idea of images and inventions belonging to a community of people to recycle and reuse in creative ways. IP stunts communal growth in art by limiting resources. With IP there are specific interests involved that seem to involve greed over integrity. While I believe credit should be due to an artist so that a persons style can be recognized for networking purposes, I do not believe that “posessive individualism” should rue the day. Artists should have the freedom in reconstructing meanings through appropriating ideas and imagery to make a point without paying an arm and a leg. The world should be able to have a continuing conversation that recycles images and ideas forever instead of robbing us of our “cultural memory.” Wouldn’t an image or idea have a longer thriving life, and be more recognized, if it were more available rather than locked away for only people who can afford to use it?
magropp
February 28th, 2008 at 3:27 am
reading these articles made me frustrated. I am so glad that there are people writing articles such as these, and someone is fighting for the right side, but to tell the truth the fight seems quite hopeless at the moment. Such large corporations are backing unjust and unfair copyright laws, that it seems as if the people have no hope to overturn them. I witness time and time again the real clout that mega-corporations have in congress, and I become more and more frustrated. I have always heard about creative commons, and its great to start practicing what we preach, but there is still so much information that has utterly ridiculous copyright on it, that the world looks bleak. It was interesting to read about intellectual property imperialism, because I had just discussed this topic in my world geography class last semester. American companies such as monsanto and the like are buying up genetic strains of crops that southeast Asian farmers had bred for decades, and then charging those same farmers for their own strain. But they are allowed to do this under the WTO, and India cannot do without the WTO, unless they want to face a starving population and broken economy. 21st century imperialism.
Elyse Mercedes
March 5th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I have always been interested in copyright issues, after having an encounter on infringing on someone’s right with their image. So it was good to have some insight. I didn’t know there was a such thing called copyleft, so that was a new thing to learn. Over all it was helpful.
This topic was very interesting and hot topic for me. Since writer’s 3months strike in LA just ended, I was curious about how copyright works. Like Dallas Weaver mentioned in his article “Copyright this,” writers work for money, and if they do not receive appropriate payment, then they need to be. However, the idea why they had strike was strongly related to online distribution of their work, however, the way they end up the strike did not show how they apply to this topic. I’m not sure if they meant free online distribution or production online distribution. I think it’s not possible to ignore this fast growing online distribution unless they find out good way to cooperate. Online information distribution is huge part of culture in nowadays. Anyway, this end of strike made me wonder what copyright really means. In the article, “Copyright, CopyLeft, and the Creative Anti-Commons” made me think a lot. I did not know there is idea like anti-copyright, copyleft, Creative Commons. It is true that copyright of any intangible works become obstacles to expand culture. It is up to the creaters if they encourage expanding culture or keep their work on their own. And, when they use “copyleft,” “Creative Commons” as such, I think it is important to receive the intention of creaters’ work appropriately. If I was an artist, I wonder what I would put next to my work.
I was very intrigued by the ideas of Copyleft and the movement to push “copy rights” to a form that is free and maintained as free. I thought it was also interesting the contrast made between piracy, and digital piracy on the internet. Coincidentally — and on a side note — I find it both hilarious and ironic that Disney’s largest franchise in its history is Pirates of the Caribbean.
“Copyright, Copyleft, and the Creative Anti-Commons” is a great article that explores the ideas from historical perspectives to modern views. As someone who bittorrents files, it is nice to see a connection, especially in the aspects that cover the former utilitarian copying of books in the pre-Revolution days of America. I am a poor student, and I benefit greatly from my ability to acquire information and software to increase my skill set without charge.
Before reading “Copyright, Copyleft, and the Creative Anti-Commons”, I had no idead what copyleft was, and that there was even such a word. Unlike copyright, copyleft allows an author to keep some rights and give every person with permission to reproduce, adapt, or distribute the work. The licenses of open contents are an important part for the enhancement of open ideas. Copyleft provides users the chances to modify, transform, recast the work without infringement of copyright.
I also thinks it’s interesting when Dallas Weaver talks about Mickey Mouse vs. E=MC2. It raises an important question on the fact about what should be copyrighted, what is copyrighted, and what can be copyrighted. Where should we draw the line?
I really enjoyed the Copyright Copyleft article. I liked how the author pointed out that copyright is only a recent invention, and that laws concerning art in the past really weren’t prevalent. It wasn’t a big deal to have art accredited for. I think its harder to be an artist now than it was in the past. With all the paperwork and business that goes along with art nowadays, its hard just to enjoy creating art for the pleasure of it. But then again, if art is your passion, you’ll always find a way to balance the work and the pleasure, am I right? I’d like to think so.
Nimus brings up some very thought provoking questions. I definitely grew up until about age 16 or so believing in the romantic notion of the artist as a genius, his or her illuminating qualities springing from the inside out. I suppose you could say I bought into cultural conditioning or stereotypes, it took awhile to for me to think as I do now, believing the artist serves as a conduit for the energy around them and the unique perspectives that people possess, or unique combination of influences, when combined with other “external” factors, is what can potentially produce thought-provoking or otherwise beautiful, interesting art. The notion of property in western culture is another interesting thing Nimus discusses. My thoughts went to the ordeals surrounding colonization and how Native Americans had never really seen a fence until Europeans came overseas. When you approach the issue from a different paradigm, the notion of property really does seem absurd. Also, “ideas are viral” is a really great statement. Similarly, Weaver’s “Copyright This”, points out that in the scheme of things copyrights can do more bad than good. Psychologically speaking, the ideas that come with copyrighting are socially detrimental. The “looking out for number 1” ideal that is implied along with capitalist culture definitely doesn’t foster any kind of positive community-based action. Whether this is “the man” intentionally trying to oppress the people on a grassroots level by making them competitors instead of collaborators is still up to debate as far as I see. Copyright taxes which would revert products/ideas/whatever to public domain seem like a great idea though.
like Stephanie, i didn’t know what a copyleft was - i thought it had something to do with politics (technically it does, but it’s more for the legal than the politics). in reading “Copyright” by anna nimus (or is that “anonymous”?…could be wrong about that, but you must wonder…) the youtube short from the earlier class kept playing in my mind (”the - copy! - right? -…..”) and i went back to watch it (again). then i noticed another entry in the youtube “list of semi-related” items titled “the disney trap: how copyright steals our ideas”. this video covered some of the same areas “Fair(y) Use Tail” covered, such as the limitations of a copyright in the early years up to about 2006 (when the short was made). however, it also brought up a point from “Copyright” - the copyleft. it was brief, and not explicitly explained, but it was there in this over acted, badly-lit piece. it also brought up a reason on maybe why the copyright went from 50 to 70 years via Mrs. Disney”.
Mr. Weaver’s bit “Copyright This” brings up some practical ideas on the problem of over copyrighting something that has fallen in inherent value (like newspaper bits). i wonder if he had a double meaning to “mickey mouse category”, on one hand, it is the most notorious for following its copyrights to the letter; on the other, it can also mean “not going anywhere/not doing anything important”. i wonder which it is
Cassandra Sechler
02-28-08
Al of the articles made me ponder the concept of ideas as property and the absurdity of this. What I liked about the “Intellectual Property Myth” article was how it mentioned that creative works were made before I.P. and will be made after it is dispelled as well– copyright laws don’t necessarily motivate creative works, they stunt them. Like Nimus notes in “Copyright/Copyleft,” John Oswald’s motto was: “if creativity is a field, copyright is the fence.” I really like this quote and how it presents a metaphor of the confinements of copyright.
I agree with the idea of images and inventions belonging to a community of people to recycle and reuse in creative ways. IP stunts communal growth in art by limiting resources. With IP there are specific interests involved that seem to involve greed over integrity. While I believe credit should be due to an artist so that a persons style can be recognized for networking purposes, I do not believe that “posessive individualism” should rue the day. Artists should have the freedom in reconstructing meanings through appropriating ideas and imagery to make a point without paying an arm and a leg. The world should be able to have a continuing conversation that recycles images and ideas forever instead of robbing us of our “cultural memory.” Wouldn’t an image or idea have a longer thriving life, and be more recognized, if it were more available rather than locked away for only people who can afford to use it?
reading these articles made me frustrated. I am so glad that there are people writing articles such as these, and someone is fighting for the right side, but to tell the truth the fight seems quite hopeless at the moment. Such large corporations are backing unjust and unfair copyright laws, that it seems as if the people have no hope to overturn them. I witness time and time again the real clout that mega-corporations have in congress, and I become more and more frustrated. I have always heard about creative commons, and its great to start practicing what we preach, but there is still so much information that has utterly ridiculous copyright on it, that the world looks bleak. It was interesting to read about intellectual property imperialism, because I had just discussed this topic in my world geography class last semester. American companies such as monsanto and the like are buying up genetic strains of crops that southeast Asian farmers had bred for decades, and then charging those same farmers for their own strain. But they are allowed to do this under the WTO, and India cannot do without the WTO, unless they want to face a starving population and broken economy. 21st century imperialism.
I have always been interested in copyright issues, after having an encounter on infringing on someone’s right with their image. So it was good to have some insight. I didn’t know there was a such thing called copyleft, so that was a new thing to learn. Over all it was helpful.