Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
A move away from the scarcity model that our current copyright legislation promotes. Instead of holding fast to the belief that our creativity and ingenuity is limited and exhaustible, like some sort of oil reserve, we should model a more open, sharing-based system that focuses on our ability to create and innovate -- not on the ideas we "own".
wildesmith [2009-09-08 12:14] Nº du commentaire : 2322 Répondre à : 2048
we are not talking about ideas here we are talking about people, who have taken time, effort, and money to create something that others are interested enough in, to bother to take time from their busy lives to include it in same.
Therfore by that act alone it is seen to have value.
To expect to get something that has taken time effort and money from someone without thier permission is sucumbing to greed and nothing else.
Scarcity is not the issue, control is not the issue, compensation is the issue. The fact that the inetrweb lets so many artists get seen and heard demonstrates the abundance of creativity at play, yet this does not dimminish the fact that it has all come at a price. The "owner" is entitled to give it away should they choose to do so but if they do not then they deserve the same protection you do. If you made rocking chair and put it on your porch and had a for sale sign on it and someone took it because they could, would you be OK with that? And would you go make another one and put it out there again? And if that one met the same fate how long would you continue?
tamarack [2009-09-13 13:42] Nº du commentaire : 2508 Répondre à : 2322
wildesmith-- i agree with what you say about seeking permission. i believe a creative-commons type licensing where individuals could license their work for sharing with certain stipulations would be a far, far, far cry better than what we have.
but bear in mind that we aren't talking about rocking chairs, a good which either you or i own, and only one person can use at a time; we are talking about ideas, creativity and innovation, more akin to the design you put on the leg of the rocking chair (to take a bad analogy further). this is exactly the mentality i allude to with the term "scarcity model" -- thinking only one person can own an idea. *that* is what's greedy.
wildesmith [2009-09-13 20:49] Nº du commentaire : 2515 Répondre à : 2508
The design is up for grabs
Yet just as the Beatles borrowed all kinds of designs from their surroundings to create their chairs does not preclude that their chairs are still theirs. If I want to use a line from another artist be it a poem a book or a song in one of my songs I have no qualms in doing so and in fact admit it freely to pay homage to my source. Yet if I take their finished work to enjoy for myself I see no reason why I should get it for free. Conversely if I make my friends a CD of faves for a gift I also see no issue with doing so, for if all piracy was limited to friends giving to friends there would not be an issue to discuss.
Simply put I am all for taking ideas and running with them and I don't see the copyright issue interfering with this. I am for protecting a body of work that is being passed around by strangers to strangers simply because it costs nothing.
Our culture does not value something for nothing.
Long ago I took TM (transcendental meditation). I asked why they did not give it away for free if they were so spiritual. They said they had done so in the past and found that people did not continue with it when they got it for free because they did not put any value on it.
I have used this thinking in my work life and found it works. When a client ask me for a "sample" I send it at no cost but I send an invoice with the value and a second line on the invoice backing out the cost so they can see I sent them a 15.00 or 20.00 dollar item. This way they recognise that what I sent had value.
I think when people pass around music for free we don't bother to give it a listen with any real value. This is because there is no investment. Just as with TM and the "free" sample people don't seem to value things unless they have a made some form of investment in it.
That's a bit off track but it does let you know where I'm coming from. I'm one of those people who tips the guy who washes my car when he does a great job just because it seems like the right thing to do.
I value people who put extra effort into what they do and feel they should be included in the pie.