http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:13:59 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/16/142642.php#comment-398457 I think we need some more information ... ]]> 398457@blogcritics.org Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:13:59 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/16/142642.php#comment-7908 Brian, Thanks for the kind words and I very much admire your putting your baby where your mouth is, so to speak. This is brave and I hope yields fruit for you. Please keep us informed. ]]> 7908@blogcritics.org Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:02:56 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/16/142642.php#comment-7904 Here here, Eric. I've been so obsessed with the war I haven't posted or commented on the copyright issues that have popped up often here. But I'm beginning to feel I should, especially as it is the one topic on which you and I probably agree close to 100%. Later this year, I plan to launch an organization called Free Cinema, which will have two rules: 1) No money may be spent on the production of the film, and 2) The film must be copylefted. I did an interview yesterday about Free Cinema and, as usual, the reporter just didn't get it. "How can you make any money?" The reporter just couldn't understand that most revenue streams available to a copyrighted work are still available to a copylefted work. It just has the added benefit of having other copies out there, virally reproducing, so as to raise awareness for the product. (There is an article on a different subject that serves as a <a href="http://www.slumdance.com/brian_flemming/nipples.html">preview</a> of Free Cinema up at my site.) I've also "open-sourced" my movie, <a href="http://www.nothingsostrange.com/diary/021003.html">Nothing So Strange</a>. Although I really have no idea if this will eventually mean anything. Experimentation with copyright is important in and of itself, I think, so we just did it to see what happens. I think the major media companies will fight a compulsory-license model tooth and nail. As you point out, it will democratize their industries, and that just isn't in their interest. The film-industry creative guilds will not be much help in the overall fight, either--the DGA, WGA, SAG all support the standard line on copyright. I'm a member of the WGA, and I can't get anyone at any functions to pay attention to me--the "protect copyright at all costs forever" dogma is simply ingrained. ("Oh, I get it--you're a communist" is a common reaction.) And there really isn't a desire for an open debate on the matter. I'm also a member of ASCAP. When the head of ASCAP wrote a piece in the org's magazine praising the Supreme Court's recent decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft, I wrote back a brief letter expressing a contrary point of view. I asked both for a reply and for the magazine to print the letter. I got neither. I've never seen the pro-freedom point of view articulated in any publication by any creative guild--not even as a tiny little sidebar, 50 token words, whatever. It is utterly absent. The assumption is that every artist agrees that a hard, Valenti-dogma line on copyright is the best thing for all artists. This is one of the things that distresses me the most about this battle--we're fighting it without many of the artists' organizations that should be our allies. ]]> 7904@blogcritics.org Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:54:29 EDT