tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post2706202583718303621..comments2024-03-16T12:26:17.479-04:00Comments on Russell McOrmond's personal blog: Traditional definitions in the copyright debate.Russell McOrmondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-38434340609048805862010-07-03T23:21:48.305-04:002010-07-03T23:21:48.305-04:00Wow. Google having odd problems tonight. I poste...Wow. Google having odd problems tonight. I posted the comment. Then Google told me it was too big, so I split it in two. Then I saw 4 comments: the correct one, a previous edit, and the two split ones.<br /><br />Ick.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-81314021643910778872010-07-03T23:12:45.664-04:002010-07-03T23:12:45.664-04:00@Jason K
There are different responses to your la...@Jason K<br /><br />There are different responses to your last comment.<br /><br />One is to note that I was trying to make sense out of language that was already being used by a different group of people. There are numerous people associated with <a href="http://www.accesscopyright.ca/Default.aspx?id=41" rel="nofollow">Access Copyright</a>, a collective for various types of written works, (and the <a href="http://www.creatorscopyright.ca/members.html" rel="nofollow">Creators Copyright Coalition</a>, and the <a href="http://www.cra-adc.ca/en/members" rel="nofollow">Creators Rights Alliance</a> -- although these groups are very linked) that have been using the terms "copy right" and "copy left" to refer to two different political philosophies in copyright. If you look at the policies that the people who self-identify with the "copy right" are proposing, they are all about preserving existing institutions -- and the further 'right' you go, the more they believe that these institutions should be preserved at all costs.<br /><br />Those that this "copy right" group refer to as the "copy left" are people like myself, Cory Doctorow and others who propose policies which are institutional neutral, and which enable a full spectrum of methods of production, distribution and funding. It's not that we reject all existing institutions, we just don't consider them all that important (or sometimes helpful, as in the case of the recording industry) when it comes to protecting the interests of actual creators.<br /><br /><br />That's one way to look at that article: It was all about me trying to make sense of the labels that John Degen, <a href="http://www.flora.ca/creators/" rel="nofollow">Susan Crean</a> and other gave to me in a way that was informative rather than derogatory.<br /><br /><br /><br />The other is to repeat the observation that in order to make sense of politics you need to realise that there are multiple axes of liberalism and conservatism. I identified axes of social policy, economic policy, and ecological policy. It is possible for someone to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and we used to call them Progressive Conservatives (or more narrowly, Red Tories). We have also seen people who could be labelled as fiscally liberal and socially conservative, with examples of people in the NDP who were kicked out for defying the party whip on specific social policies.<br /><br />I'm suggesting Copyright is one of those policies that can't be mapped directly onto economic policy like you did. You took a legal definition of copyright as a government created monopoly -- a clear example of state intervention in the marketplace -- and looked at the left-vs-right of that.<br /><br />First, this would put John on the left of me, something that is not compatible with how John is using the term. That would mean it isn't a useful axis to understand how John is using the word.<br /><br />Second, it doesn't explain how it tends to be more conservative countries and governments that push for stronger enforcement of so-called "Intellectual Property". True, this is partly because of confusion around the use of the term "property" rather than "government granted monopoly that can be bought/sold". But to ignore this is to use language that isn't helpful in understanding peoples behaviour/etc.<br /><br />Hope this helps/etc. Great discussion. And far better on blogs than on Twitter....Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-79938920751812014052010-07-02T16:41:30.929-04:002010-07-02T16:41:30.929-04:00@Russell,
I don't agree with the political te...@Russell,<br /><br />I don't agree with the political terminology you've used here. I think the terminologies used are based on Gaylor's film, and he used it to basically describe the 2 sides to copyright.<br /><br />The correct political ideology:<br /><br />Conservative -> Non market interference or very little. markets will regulate themselves. The extreme side of this would be no copyright.<br /><br />Socialist -> Total Market interference, believes in heavy regulation and sanctions. Determines what consumers buy and do with their products within law. The extreme here would be the 3 strikes law, consumer penalties, and DRM as currently written.<br /><br />Liberal -> Balanced, between both conservative and socialist policies. Regulation needed, but to ensure a fair and balanced approach to the market usually based on independent information to avoid market tipping or interference. <br /><br />Either way you are still liberal in my view. Most are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-47285048903997642010-07-02T16:05:40.198-04:002010-07-02T16:05:40.198-04:00It's also important to note that as a facebook...It's also important to note that as a facebook member, John is fully able to start his own group and administer it himself. To my knowledge this hasn't been done by John.<br /><br />Now back to my day off ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7753959616553937852.post-32384468414757480812010-07-02T15:25:55.575-04:002010-07-02T15:25:55.575-04:00I personally find this whole situation quite comic...I personally find this whole situation quite comical, and that some creator groups are so dispirit to bring attention to their positions and claim censorship from being booted from a facebook group. It's a facebook group for crying out loud, get over it! <br /><br />If creative groups feel banning someone from a facebook group is censorship than I would very much like to see these groups take facebook to court on this issue to amend their policies on group administration. I would be very surprised if a judge in our court system would actually hear a case like this since it's so full of BS.<br /><br />John has been in no way "censored" from the issues presented as the term defines, I think the courts would agree with this. John has a blog, and has actively posted a link to his blog over the past 2 years in FCFC-YR. It is in my belief that most of the members in FCFC-YR are also members of the Nation Chapter in which John has been active in, and still has the ability to post. John also has the respect of local media to share his views, in which has more readership in his region than he would get at FCFC-YR. The courts would see this, and it would be lucky to even be heard imo.<br /><br />This is yet another failed public relations and smear campaign on the part of those who are using PR to push for stricter reforms that attack the public voice, rather than respect it.<br /><br />If they were smart, than they should be working on their public image, and get behind something the public would actually support rather than consistently putting consumers information, the consumer voice, and financial security of the public at large at risk because of an extreme socialist view on copyright in which our main socialist party won't even support.<br /><br />I can understand how some might feel their voices are not being heard because of the lack of support on their positions. I think that's a matter more of image these groups have within the public, and claiming censorship on an admin decision in a facebook group and trying to spin it as such, goes to the credibility and image of this group and just how weak their positions have become in the public's view and that with respect to law makers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com