[Web4lib] Consumer Group Raises Concerns about Google PrintLibrary

[Chris Gray]

In an ideal world, I'd be inclined to be anti-IP, but in this world I'm
inclined to believe that, like it or not, IP is going to be around a long
time along with grossly unfair distributions of wealth.  Look at Disney
successfully lobbying to get the length of copyright extended just before
Mickey and friends went public domain.

IP does go some way (in the absence of fairer methods) to getting at least
some recompense for creative results to the creators.  Unfortunately, the
people who benefit most from IP are not the creators of IP, but those who
"own the means of production".

Independent film makers want access to bigger budgets to do what they want
to do artistically.  Small town bands want to catch the ear of a producer
and sign a contract to become stars.  Free concerts in the town square
might be a step to that, but they don't put bread on the table.  Free
software writers usually have jobs (or want them) making good money
writing commercial software.  I'm not particularly happy about all this,
but so what?

Let's remember where this discussion started.  Google is operating in
_this_ world and their goal is not unadulterated good to all humanity, but
making money for shareholders.  A lot of other people have a monetary
interest in the material they propose to use to enrich themselves and so
there is bound to be a fight.

Those of us concerned about the downside of IP should save our energy to
oppose the push to base everything on IP.  We need to preserve an area for
"public goods" and not do everything according to a business and markets
model.

Chris

THE OPPOSITE VIEW

For many system shoppers it's
 a good-for-nothing system
that classifies as opposites
 stupidity and wisdom.

because by logic-choppers it's
 accepted with avidity:
stupidity's true opposite's
 the opposite stupidity.
     --Piet Hein

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Chuck0 wrote:

> Thomas Edelblute wrote:
>
> > Thomas Edison bankrupted the French movie producer (whose name I forget)
> > by pirating his movie depicting a voyage to the moon and distributing
> > freely across America.  Copyright law is designed to offer protections
> > from unauthorized reproductions and financial incentives for authors and
> > artists to continue to create new works. While open source has its
> > merits, it does not over-ride the need for IP protections.  Hollywood
> > would not make films without these protections, and some of my favorite
> > Science Fiction authors would not write without these financial
> > incentives.
>
> Yes, that is the current dogma as promoted by the corporations, schools,
> and other American institutions.
>
> Are you saying that Hollywood wouldn't be making Bewitched 2 if there
> was no copyright law? Given the crap being produced by Hollywood these
> days, it would be a good thing to disrupt that monopoly and give
> independent producers a crack at your local movie theaters.
>
> In fact, there are many artists who are more motivated by their craft
> than they are by money. All of us have to worry about getting money to
> pay the bills and the rent, but there are ways to support artists such
> as public monies.
>
> Most musicians and artists out there do not benefit from intellectual
> property law. They don't have the money to buy lawyers to litigate and I
> suspect that many artists simply don't care about IP.
>
> Of course, we all know that artists will continue to create new works
> without intellectual property law. Artists have created works for
> centuries without IP laws existing. And IP laws actually INTERFERE with
> the creative process. As I stated in a previous email, art and music
> rely heavily on borrowing. The current regime of IP law interferes with
> the free flow of ideas, which isn't just harmful to artists but to our
> culture.
>
> Chuck
> Infoshop.org
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>