Stealing a thing leaves one thing less
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- “One of our upcoming projects is the Minute Memes video series,” says a p2pnet Reader’s Write, going on »»»
Nina Paley, award-winning animator of Sita Sings the Blues, wanted her next work after Sita to be about copyright restrictions and censorship, and hit on the idea of “Minute Memes”: short, viral videos that use visual storytelling to spread truly revolutionary ideas.
You know, radical stuff, like the notion that people should be able to share music without asking permission, or that making a derivative work is an act of homage not destruction.
“The sorts of ideas you’re not likely to hear from the MPAA or the RIAA, who, of course, are busy making their own videos to convince you that culture should be owned,” adds the comment.
Copying Isn’t Theft is the title to the first as-yet unfinished Minute Meme, “but Nina’s written a song to go with it,” says the site, “Or at least the lyrics and the tune – the rest of the arrangement comes from you.”
Musicians, “what can you do with this?”": – it asks, going on »»»
Nina Sings “Copying Isn’t Theft” from Reel 13 on Vimeo.
Go wild. Rearrange it, re-dub the vocals, do whatever you need to do. When you think you’ve got something good, post it somewhere and leave a comment here (or contact us). If it’s close enough to what Nina was aiming for, we may be able to use it in the Minute Memes.
The lyrics are:
Copying isn’t theft
Stealing a thing leaves one less left
Copying it makes one thing more
That’s what copying’s for.
Copying isn’t theft
If I copy yours, you have it too
One for me and one for you
That’s what copies can do.
If I steal your bicycle,
You have to take the bus
But if I just copy it,
There’s one for each of us!
Making more of a thing
That is what we call copying
Sharing ideas with everyone
That’s why copying…
…Is fun!
Meanwhile, “Due largely to ubiquitous and professionally-made public campaigns by the recording and publishing industries, many people – even those who share music online – identify unauthorized copying with stealing and with plagiarism,” says Question Copyright, continuing:
“It is difficult to go from that frame of mind to one receptive to the notion that the freedom to share, and the freedom to create derivative works, might be civil rights. One must first accept that, for example, “editing a copy without the original author’s permission” is not the same as “destroying someone’s hard work”.
“Before a new way of thinking can be presented, then, the issues must be reframed. We must enable the viewer to feel that formerly unquestioned terms and assumptions deserve a fresh look. Only after crossing that emotional barrier will someone be willing to consider copyright in a new way. But crossing that kind of barrier requires rhetorical tools that go beyond plain expository argument. For someone to consider ideas they may have previously felt were unrealistic or even immoral, they need to first give themselves permission — they must feel it’s safe to go there.
“The Minute Memes project will help build that mental permission structure. This involves making rigorous arguments, but also sending extra-rational signals: compelling anecdotes, memorable images and music, high aesthetic standards and overall production quality. We need to match or exceed the production values of the copyright industry’s campaigns, while simultaneously having a message that better fits how people actually want to treat copyable and remixable content.”
Stay tuned.
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 9:20 am
Fundamentally, theft is a privacy violation (a violation of the natural right to privacy).
It is the unauthorised removal or communication of something across the boundary of an individual’s private domain.
Thus it is still theft to steal a copy of someone’s diary from their bedside drawer as it is to steal the diary. It doesn’t undo the violation to leave the original or even the copy. Granted, the victim in one case at least retains a copy, but either way, a copy has been stolen from them. The remedy is to reverse the theft.
That’s how to recognise IP theft (and violation of an author’s constitutionally recognised, natural exclusive right to their writings).
In all other cases copyright infringement is simply ignoring a state granted monopoly, i.e. making copies of your own property against the wishes of the monopoly holder. Thus if you buy a copy of “The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13¾” (rather than stealing it from someone), then there is no theft in making a copy, nor any violation of anyone else’s privacy or natural exclusive right (copyright is a privilege aka ‘legal right’, a government grant of an exclusive right – natural rights, or simply ‘rights’ as they used to be termed, cannot be granted, but are instead recognised, as they are by the US constitution).
The observation that manufacturing a copy is productive whereas removing someone’s possession denies them its use is a non sequitur, and sheds no light on the ethics of the matter.
Fundamentally, we are at liberty to do what we like with our own possessions, but not with those of others (unless they give us permission or make us privy).
We are naturally at liberty to make copies of the baskets we buy or copies of the poems we buy, but we would violate our neighbour’s privacy if we burgled them and made and removed copies of their baskets (whoever designed them) or made and removed copies of their poems (whoever wrote them).
Similarly, we are naturally at liberty to remove our baskets from our cars, and our books of poetry from our bookshelves, but we would violate our neighbour’s privacy if we burgled them and removed their baskets or their books of poetry from their cars or houses.
So, it’s an oversimplification to say that copying isn’t theft. It would be better to say that making copies of your property and distributing them isn’t theft.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The artists (or more accurately, the labels) want their music played on the radio for the whole world to hear. It’s not a privacy violation if you intentionally display your diary in public for everyone to see.
Buck
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
You’re quite right Buck.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
[quote]The artists (or more accurately, the labels) want their music played on the radio for the whole world to hear. It’s not a privacy violation if you intentionally display your diary in public for everyone to see.
Buck[/quote]
Sorta, but not really in the case of radio. Radio isn’t an artist just putting their music up for the world to hear. Radio is a radio station paying an artist (or label) for the rights to play that music for the world to hear. So just because the radio station payed the artist, doesn’t mean that everyone else in the world now has the right to take that music for their own.
If I give someone permission to show my diary to a 3rd person, that doesn’t give the 3rd person the right to then show it to a 4th, 5th, 6th, etc person.
I see your point, and I hate what the music industry is doing (has been doing and will continue to do), but your argument is flawed.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“…just because the radio station payed the artist, doesn’t mean that everyone else in the world now has the right to take that music for their own….”
I never said that. I was simply refuting the privacy issue. If you put something on display in public, you cannot claim that your privacy has been violated. My argument in that respect is not flawed.
“If I give someone permission to show my diary to a 3rd person, that doesn’t give the 3rd person the right to then show it to a 4th, 5th, 6th, etc person.”
That’s not a very good analogy, because that’s not what’s happening in this hypothetical situation. A better analogy would be putting your diary on Facebook and opening it up to the public. You’re putting your diary on display for EVERYONE to see. There is no 3rd-to-4th person permission or 4th-to-5th person permission involved here. It’s one-to-many relationship. Again, this is only in reference to the privacy issue that Crosbie Fitch brought up. We already know that it’s illegal to share copyrighted property.
Buck