Check
this out. Another lawsuit by record companies brought against
music pirates. Isn't that something, piracy? So, I am a pirate
as well! I downloaded hours and hours of music from Napster
while it was there. Now I am doing the same thing with Vitaminic
and other websites. The record companies say this way of distributing
music is damaging to them because it cuts down on CD sales.
Furthermore, they claim it is illegal, because music publishers
have to sign contracts with music authors and pay them for their
work, so, basically, when you buy a CD, you support the artist
and not the publisher.
I'm
not so sure.
One
thing I know is, publishers would never bring out a single record,
a book or a magazine if it wasn't for money. Of course, I agree
that the author has to earn his living with his work, I am not
questioning that.
The
question is: is selling CDs the only way to support an artist?
If things remain as they are now, the answer is probably positive.
So, recognizing the rights of intellectual property is a just
policy to a certain degree. If I am a musician I should be entitled
to make a living with my music, so everyone playing my music
in public owes me something. Therefore: as an author I have
the right to enjoy the fruits of my talent and make a profit
from it. Afterwards, for practical reasons, I transfer my rights
to an editor who publishes my works...books, records, etc...and
sees to their distribution - things that I could not do on my
own. In return, the publisher pays me a fixed fee or a share
of the sales.
This
is a basic copyright principle and there is very little to objection
to it if things work this way. There are copyright laws that
regulate the author's rights and protect the author as the owner
of the copyright.
But,
Napster or Vitaminic aren't really violating these rules. No
one here takes possession of someone else's work to sell it
or make profit without paying the author. That is what happens
with a pirate videotape, maybe. But in this case there is a
community of people who exchange things already in their possession
...
Wait,
let me see if there's any new stuff...
There's this hot piece by Saint Germain that I am about to download
just now.
Definitely
not from the publisher's website. I'll take it from the hard
drive of someone who has it and is connected to the web. I don't
even have to know the guy. And while I'm downloading, someone
else may take advantage of my connection and download from my
hard drive a piece of music he likes.
It's
like lending a book or a CD to a friend and borrowing one from
him at the same time. Only in this case, the friends don't know
each other.
I
am not even so sure whether this Internet exchange really brings
down CD sales. I've read some quite contradictory piece of information.
I for one, still buy CDs, though I download music files from
the Internet. Even more so. And even if that was the case, the
Internet is not the only one to blame. The fact is the record
companies are greedy and are selling the CDs at much higher
prices than what they should or could cost.
Many
people, particularly younger ones, can't afford to buy them.
The Internet has merely given these people the opportunity to
listen to music they like. Who knows, if the CD prices went
down ...maybe this would...
What
the heck is wrong now ?!...jammed again!...I'll have to shut
it down and restart it again. And I'll have to repeat the downloading
from scratch.
To
hell with Microsoft!
I
said I would try Linux but I never have time to install it.
It is not like counting to three but my friend Robert tells
me it works miracles once it is installed. He should know, he's
an expert. It never gets jammed, it's much more reliable.
I
bet it is!
Thousands must have contributed to that operative system, testing
and retesting again.
It's
a perfect way to find all the downsides and the bugs.
Linux
is actually a free operative system invented by that Finn, Linus
Torvalds, when he was still a student, ten or maybe twelve years
ago. He didn't keep the programme code secret as happens with
all commercial software.
He
has made it public by putting it on the net as an open source
for hundreds or thousands of computer programmers to work on
it if they felt like it.
They've corrected mistakes, improved the operation, broadened
the applications. Now there is a struggle going on between Linux
and other commercial operative systems, like Windows, to see
which one gains more ground. In the field of network software
Linux is ahead for the time being. In other fields, the game
is still on. Clearly, Linux is still lagging behind but apparently
heading up.
Since this is an alternative to copyright, they've named it
copyleft. It is a peculiar licence invented by the American
founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, years
before Torvalds started writing Linux. It is called General
Public License, GPL, and says everyone is free to copy, modify
and distribute software under that licence as long as they leave
the licence untouched, meaning that others will be able to do
what they have done.
I've
read about it in this book "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"
by Eric Raymond. Of course, I've downloaded the book from the
net and printed it.
Maybe
the situation with software is a bit different from the one
of music. It seems to me that in this sector copyleft may work
better than copyright. Copyleft has more regard for the exchange
of ideas and encourages co-operation, while copyright just tends
to make these things more difficult. Or better, copyright puts
profit above the notion of co-operation.
Just
lately, the U.S. and some other countries have prolonged the
copyright duration from what was 50 to now 70 years after the
author's death. But it is true that the problem of repaying
the author will have to be answered even in this case. Alright,
no intellectual property, since ideas belong to everyone and
knowledge only grows when it circulates freely.
But
what will the authors live on?
After
all, even Torvalds and Stallman began working for companies
as hired personnel or as counsellors eventually. And, since
the installation of the free Linux version requires some specific
knowledge, there are now easier versions circulating, for payment.
Yes,
they do cost a lot less than Windows or Macintosh, but they
are not free of charge, though they are always covered by the
GPL licence.
So,
maybe a little copyright is there after all.
All
these problems didn't exist some time ago, because there has
never been a more powerful technology of data treatment and
distribution than the computer. Copyright laws emerged when
printed media started with mass distribution. Maybe the time
has come to change these laws.
But
in what way? Is it better to safeguard intellectual property
or co-operation? The author's rights or the spreading of ideas?
In
short: copyright or copyleft?
Antonio Caronia.
DemoKino - Virtual Biopolitical Parliament - Copyleft.
