Joey Teow’s copyright blog
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Hollywood and the members of the Big 4 organised music gang will, presumably, just love Joey Teow over in Australia.
“One of the favourite tactics of Hollywood and the Big 4 record labels is to raise the spectre of kiddy porn every time they’re trying to ram new legislation home,” I posted in Copyright Alliance: mind-raping our children earlier today, going on:
“But something far more disgusting is happening — the mind -rape of children by the major record labels, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and the Hollywood studios, Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney.
“They’re twisting and bending the minds of America’s children, warping and them to the false standards of the corporate movie and music industries, all the while accusing parents of being criminals and thieves.”
And they’re using something called the Copyright Alliance to promote the ludicrous idea that even very young children need to be taught intellectual property and copyright law in school classrooms.
With that in mind, “Here’s an example of a student taking his own initiative to learn about copyright, the ethics of it, and what part it should play in his future,” says Crosbie Fitch in a p2pnet Reader’s Write to the story.
And that’s Joey Teow from St Mary’s Cathedral College in Sydney, Australia, who,”gives a link to the blogs of his peers who are also exploring their own ideas about it,” says Crosbie.
But maybe the entertainment cartel gangsters won’t be so pleased because unlike them, Joey does an excellent job of trying to portray the situation as it is.
Both sides instead of just one, and on his blog concludes »»»
I believe that copyright should only be enforced on works of creators who want copyright on their works. At our current day, every artist has to go through the processes of enforcing copyright onto their works. This maybe inconveniant for those who do not want copyright on their works, and just want to share their works around.
Below is a clip lifted from Joey’s blog note: (he also includes industry examples). We’re hoping he won’t mind. 
Arguements for and against copyright
Watch these videos for views on copyright from both the cyber pirates and people from major music and movie companies:
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0760af59d0baf5acbb84
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f7ff053fff7c54e5148c
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=c76aa81dbaffce7dea0a
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1de7232164767ccfa792
For
- Copyright gives some sense of security to the author of a work. I say some because, these pieces of work cannot always be 100% protected.
- Copyright could ensure that the author gets more sales and profit from his works, because people wont be able to illegally obtain it.
Against
- Some people believe that copyrighting is unethical. It is said that it is not ethical to suspend the public’s freedom to enjoy, share, or build upon human culture, nor to grievously punish members of the public when they do assert their right to freedom.
- People also believe that copyright is not a right, but a commercial privilege for the benefit of publishers.
Great work, Joey.
JN
April, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“People also believe that copyright is not a right, but a commercial privilege for the benefit of publishers.”
A while ago, Michael Geist leaked the e-mail sent by CRIA to Canadian MPs lobbying for Canadian DMCA.
Here is the comment that says it all:
————————————
“Copyright is the right held by the creator of a literary work, musical work, artistic work or software to decide how that work should be reproduced and made available to the public.”
Wrong.
Copyright is NOT A RIGHT, and it is not a GIVEN right. Not at all. Copyright is a PRIVILEGE, granted by the SOCIETY to the creator of a literary work, musical work, artistic work or software so that the creator has an incentive to create. It is granted on a CONDITION that the work gets returned to the public domain in a reasonable time, so that other creators can build upon it freely and the society can benefit. So, it is a CONTRACT between the creator and the society.
However, the “intellectual” “property” industries have been violating this contract for years, with their lobbying of copyright extension amendments everywhere. The most notorious violator is Disney, who essentially made the copyright term INFINITE to prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into public domain.
THEY are violating their part of the bargain; therefore the contract should be deemed null and the society should be freed of the obligation to respect their part of the deal too.
April 25th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“THEY are violating their part of the bargain; therefore the contract should be deemed null and the society should be freed of the obligation to respect their part of the deal too.”
EXACTLY.
This guy “gets” it.
This is also why the pro-copyright side cannot win this:
They:
1. Buy themselves an extension every few years (so much for the “limited time”)
2. Lobby to ban technologies: the VCR, DVD copying, BitTorrent (so much for that “science and the useful arts” thing.)
3. Propagandize, bully, harass, and sue their own customers (”And they tell their friends, and THEY tell their friends.” — remember that shampoo commercial.)
4. Stage show-trials staffed by Industry sockpuppets like Nordstrom. (Can you say “crony Capitalism”? I knew you could.)
5. Attempt to destroy the best communication medium in history (the Internet) SOLELY for their own short-term profitability.
Sorry Lars, Bono, “Maca”, Billy Corgan — ain’t gonna happen.
Breach of contract is not a good business strategy.
April 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
You know… on The Hour, Corgan bashed the labels, quite professionally, and it certainly was a beating. And yet then he goes on to promote copyright not realizing that he is no better than the labels he detests.
He supports creative freedom and the ability to distribute it any way he wants, but doesn’t support the people who’s purchases of his music put the clothes on his back. And, unfortunately, those large number of purchases also helped feed his ego, which appears to have blinded him.
Billy, it isn’t just the labels man, it’s the control over copyright, or more appropriately named, temporary-monopoly-on-privileges-of-creative-works. You can hate the labels all you want, but remember that those you alienate in support of “anti-piracy” campaigns are the people who supported you and gave you the career you enjoyed, when you support anti-piracy “laws.”
How many people would have heard of Mozart if it were not for the fact that anyone can play it in a concert hall, school, music store, etc… where people will hear it if it were not in the public domain? Imagine if your creative works were viewed by the rest of the world in the same light that you view them and people were able to play it anywhere? That’s called free promotion! You’d see more sales, which clearly matters most to you.