Comments on: CBC on Copyright Censorship

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:49:02 +0000

And let us not forget, many if not most copyright related agreements, whether artist-label contract or lawsuit settlements have a confidentiality clause which prohibits the victims of the labels from speaking their mind on the contract they signed or the agreement that was reached.

Of course, the reason for the confidentiality clause has various purposes: to hide contract violations and infringements, and because the labels are ashamed of the one sided, take it or leave it contracts they push down the throat of up-coming artists, who must sign them because all labels offer the same contracts.

Confidentiality clauses are have built severe damage awards if they are violated by the artist (but not the label). They are part of a shameful business practice that should be (o maybe is) illegal as it violates the freedom of speech right all humans have naturally.

Now we know why artists are reluctant to openly speak about theri reltions with the labels.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:45:53 +0000

“our society could not work smoothly without them”, “We want to encourage creativity but allow creativity to be rewarded.”

So, if we can figure out another way to adequately reward the creator
(who is now assuming the additional role of publisher quite easily),
we don’t really need to depend on copyright, right?

If we can do that, then our society will work a lot more smoothly than it is now.
I would not say that the UK hiring 4,500 copyright cops, hard drives being ruined, people getting shot during busts and children being sued is very smooth.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:14:42 +0000

Copyrights are necessary, our society could not work smoothly without them. Without them, people would not be rewarded for publishing after years of research and hard work. Copyrights are good. However, law is a complex issue and copyright law of yesteryear was not designed with todays replications in mind. A problem today revolves around how quickly we can distribute information internationally, while individual countries have widely different copyright laws. We want to encourage creativity but allow creativity to be rewarded.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:24:52 +0000

that copyrightlaw is a substitute for censorship/ the old top to bottom communication structures that are needed for censorship, was also pointed out in the post TPB shutdown demonstration speech by Mr. Falkvinge.
http://tpbeng.blogspot.com/2006/06/demonstration-speech-pics.html

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:12:01 +0000

I have read that this is how it all started – in England – copyright as a substitute for censorship.

A search found this (US sites):
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/os2006/view/e_sess/8509
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php

Thanks for an excellent post.