Comments on: “Amen Brother” and Other Funky Breaks

By: wisefire

wisefire — Sun, 06 May 2007 02:21:40 +0000

he said an alternative to copyright control.. not an alternative to copyright itself..

By: wisefire

wisefire — Sun, 06 May 2007 01:21:40 +0000

he said an alternative to copyright control.. not an alternative to copyright itself..

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:47:51 +0000

Good point, Charles. Creative commons is a use of copyright, not an alternative. The video is a little loose on the property concepts. As I wrote in a recent book review (on net neutrality), "Many proponents of 'openness' and 'free culture' sound anti-property themes, but most of their preferred modes of production are no more an attack on the concept of property than donating clothing to charity is." Overall, I thought the video is a good illustration of the fascinating reflection and refraction of culture you get through sampling.

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:47:51 +0000

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:01:57 +0000

A good video, quite informative. The only thing I heard in there that made me feel uneasy was the bit about creative commons being described as: "an alternative to copyright" CC is not an alternative, but an extension of copyright. It's a way for artists to, while retaining copyright, decide to which extent they want their art to be able to interact with the rest of the artistic community. It might seem like a moot point which probably most if not all readers of TLF appreciate already. Still, when I see writings like Chris Castle's blog, I can't help but think that this misconception makes the debate more difficult. At least, there are still artists like Thomas Hawk who appreciate the significance of CC.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:01:57 +0000

A good video, quite informative. The only thing I heard in there that made me feel uneasy was the bit about creative commons being described as:

"an alternative to copyright"

CC is not an alternative, but an extension of copyright. It's a way for artists to, while retaining copyright, decide to which extent they want their art to be able to interact with the rest of the artistic community.

It might seem like a moot point which probably most if not all readers of TLF appreciate already. Still, when I see writings like Chris Castle's blog, I can't help but think that this misconception makes the debate more difficult.

At least, there are still artists like Thomas Hawk who appreciate the significance of CC.

By: enigma_foundry

enigma_foundry — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:41:49 +0000

This is very true in other areas as well, and I would especially add the field of Architecture as one in which we are all very much improving one what has been done by others, incrementally.

This, of course goes against the popular mythology of the Architect as portrayed in such idiotic, but popular books, such as The Fountainhead.

Even the work of Frank Lloyd Wright had clear antecedents in the work of Louis Sullivan.

Note especially that Architects don’t very often patent their works, as copyright is quite effective at controlling their work which is deeply resistant to copying, which I explore further here:

Copybot Resistance

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:41:49 +0000

This is very true in other areas as well, and I would especially add the field of Architecture as one in which we are all very much improving one what has been done by others, incrementally.

This, of course goes against the popular mythology of the Architect as portrayed in such idiotic, but popular books, such as The Fountainhead.

Even the work of Frank Lloyd Wright had clear antecedents in the work of Louis Sullivan.

Note especially that Architects don't very often patent their works, as copyright is quite effective at controlling their work which is deeply resistant to copying, which I explore further here:

Copybot Resistance