Semi-OT: Congress about to limit artists' copyright rights

[Billy Crook]

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Jeffrey Watts
<jeffrey.w.watts at gmail.com> wrote:
> But we're all talking about the impact of this bill on small artists.
> You completely disregard the valid concerns, and talk about those
> small artists as if they're either A) assholes looking to extort money
> from poor, hard working megacorporations or

I don't particularly care for megacorps.  However, I'm not blinded by
the word corporation into thinking that corporations are automatically
the bad guys.

> B) hippie beatniks that
> shouldn't care if their work is stolen and profited from.

Stolen?  Careful with that word.  I don't think you're using it
accurately.  Profited from?  If they're not *doing* anything with it,
then no, they shouldn't care.  That would be selfish.  If your work
can help others without hurting you, and you don't want others to
benefit, that is both selfish, and destructive.  Copyright law wasn't
created to be a destructive force, but a constructive one.

> Sure, your
> concern is on _likenesses_, not actual pixel by pixel (or note for
> note) copies, but don't you see that it's a slippery slope?

Slippery slope defenses have been abused throughout history.  I don't
expect it to stop any time soon, but they're still invalid.

> I find it funny that you completely dismiss the opinions of Leo, whose
> wife apparently is an artist, and thus directly impacted.  What do you
> do Billy?  I'll freely admit that I'm not an artist - my concerns have
> more to do with the slippery slope and the possibility that this kind
> of legislation might work its way on over to software.

I don't know Leo or his wife personally.  I'm sure they're wonderful
people, but I'd rather not make this a personal issue.  Someone "being
an artist" does not, in any way, entitle them to money.  Money is
earned by selling things or fulfilling contracts.  If someone can't
make enough money to live on selling art, then perhaps, that market is
over-saturated in their area, or they just aren't as good at it as
others with which they compete.  Either way it would stand to reason
they should pursue other employment.

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no problem with my code being of financial use to others. What
> I would have a problem is for company A to take my code and modify and
> distribute it , and not return the enhancements.

Then the GPL is not for you because it does not requite the
enhancements be returned to the original author, only to the
recipients of the derivative work.

> Currently, I can have that by choosing an appropriate license for
> free. But now it seems that I would have to pay to do this.

Don't panic(TM) and stop fixating on "pay".  This will never interfere
with how one licenses their work, or their ability to do so.  You will
only have to register your copyright if you intend do sue infringers
for damages.  If you don't intend to make money off of it to begin
with, nobody can cause damages by reusing it.