other sites
topics
archives
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- September 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- March 2010
- April 2010
- June 2010
- August 2010
- January 2011
- July 2011
- November 2011
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sometimes Cory Is Smart
posted by barsoomcore
No, not me. I spell my name, correctly, like Corey Hart does. Me and Corey Hart, we may not be so smart, but damn we're pretty. And good with the spelling of our names.
No, this is an interview with Cory Doctorow, who may spell his name wrong but is otherwise pretty awesomely clever. He has said a lot of wise things about copyright and technology and for some reason this little interview (with I think I got from taky) outlines a lot of the ideas I find compelling of his:
If it turns out that P2P is the death knell for $300 million movies and artists who earn a living from recording, so what? Radio was bad news for Vaudeville, too.
...
P2P is enabling more filmmakers, more musicians, and more writers and other creators to produce a wider variety of works that please a wider audience than ever before. That's the purpose of copyright -- to enable maximal expression and cultural participation, even if it costs us Police Academy *n-1* and payola-driven boy-bands.
...
If you're in an industry that demands that bits be scarce, you have to change or die. Radio made it impossible to exclude non-paying audiences from a performance. VCRs made it impossible to ensure that audiences watched commercials. They foreclosed on some of the existing businesses of the day and created new ones.
...
Should people aspire to make a living off their creative work?
Cory: Sure, if they're prepared to starve. ... Writing, music and other forms of creative endeavor have never been a reliable way of earning a living for the vast majority of their practitioners. There was never a moment when even a large minority of people who wrote for money made a living at it. Artists are fundamentally irrational economic actors in that they continue to produce work even when there's no demand for it.
...
Copyright is supposed to safeguard creativity -- so you can tell it's working when there are more people being creative in more ways. Not when the cost of a movie goes from $200 million to $300 million.
See? Can't spell his own name, but otherwise, pretty smart.
No, this is an interview with Cory Doctorow, who may spell his name wrong but is otherwise pretty awesomely clever. He has said a lot of wise things about copyright and technology and for some reason this little interview (with I think I got from taky) outlines a lot of the ideas I find compelling of his:
If it turns out that P2P is the death knell for $300 million movies and artists who earn a living from recording, so what? Radio was bad news for Vaudeville, too.
...
P2P is enabling more filmmakers, more musicians, and more writers and other creators to produce a wider variety of works that please a wider audience than ever before. That's the purpose of copyright -- to enable maximal expression and cultural participation, even if it costs us Police Academy *n-1* and payola-driven boy-bands.
...
If you're in an industry that demands that bits be scarce, you have to change or die. Radio made it impossible to exclude non-paying audiences from a performance. VCRs made it impossible to ensure that audiences watched commercials. They foreclosed on some of the existing businesses of the day and created new ones.
...
Should people aspire to make a living off their creative work?
Cory: Sure, if they're prepared to starve. ... Writing, music and other forms of creative endeavor have never been a reliable way of earning a living for the vast majority of their practitioners. There was never a moment when even a large minority of people who wrote for money made a living at it. Artists are fundamentally irrational economic actors in that they continue to produce work even when there's no demand for it.
...
Copyright is supposed to safeguard creativity -- so you can tell it's working when there are more people being creative in more ways. Not when the cost of a movie goes from $200 million to $300 million.
See? Can't spell his own name, but otherwise, pretty smart.
Labels: Thinking
Post a Comment