RE: Supremes rule for freelancers

Subject: RE: Supremes rule for freelancers
From: "MMdeaton" <mmdeaton -at- mmdeaton -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:00:20 -0700

You never have the "rights" to my creations unless I grant them to you.
"Rights" to intellectual property are a legal concept. It translates to
"ownership." I may grant you access to reading them, but that does not mean
I grant you legal rights to the ownership of the creation, and that is what
copyright law is all about. When I publish something on my Web site, it
remains mine legally and I can go after anyone I catch using that material
in a way that I have not approved or given permission for. And granting
rights does not have to include compensation. It typically does, but it does
not have to.

As for your Napster arguments, you are correct that many of the copyrights
were not held by the artists. Whatever contracts the artists negotiated with
the record company to grant the record company the rights to use their
material did not adequately cover them, but that is not the issue I am
addressing.

At issue in the Supreme Court decision was whether the writers had in some
way granted the publishers the right to publish their material
electronically, and what the Court found was that no, they had not granted
that right to the publishers and so if the publishers wanted to reprint the
material on the Web, they would have to negotiate with the writers what
compensation would be provided for the granting of the right to publish the
writers' works on the Web.

As a technical writer and a freelance journalist, I am not concerned with
getting rich, but I am concerned with retaining legal rights to how my
material is used and, when I choose, to be fairly compensated for that use.
I do not have an employer. I earn my living with my writing. Who uses it and
how they use it is critical to my having an income. Everyone who creates
intellectual property should have absolute right to that property and the
right to grant how others will use it and whether the creator will be
compensated for such use. It has nothing to do with getting rich, it has to
do with fundamental ethics that recognize someone's ownership of the work
they do.

Mary Deaton
Deaton Information Design
Web Shui at
http://builder.cnet.com/webbuilding/0-7705-8-6301693-1.html?tag=st.bl.3880.a
lso.3880-8-6301693-1
News and opinion at: http://www.mmdeaton.com


-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Glenn Maxey
Just to add another view, your statement that "(I) do not have a right
to what (you) create" is misleading and potentially outright wrong
without further clarification.

I mean, you wouldn't have created it if you didn't want to give people
the right to access it. Hence, the additional clarification would be:
"You do not have a right to what I create... without adequate
compensation."

Napster wasn't shutdown because of the thin argument that it ignored an
artist's rights; it was shutdown because it left greedy copyright
holders -- not necessarily the artist -- out of the payment loop.

There were probably more artists IN FAVOR of Napster than against it.
Why? Not only were the artists taken advantage of in the contract
negotiations in an effort "for their (music) to be heard," but after
signing away the rights, many still weren't being heard.

Artists in the music profession make the bulk of their money from
performances, not from their copyrights. For the few who do make
significant figures off of their copyrights, it still pales in
comparision to what they earned touring and is directly related their
touring and other promotional activities.

Hence, artists -- particularly the ones who are lesser known or who are
no longer being promoted in the top-40 -- are happy for the additional
exposure that Napster provided. They are happy that the fanatics can
find them.

The Music Business is not jumping through hoops to re-release music that
had its prime in some past... unless the pay-off is big. They are a
"business" looking for very large ROI. It doesn't matter that every day
some teenager becomes "enlightened" to the brilliance of the performers
in their parent's, relative's, teacher's, or older person's archives. It
doesn't matter that they find this new "collectible" much more valuable
and satisfying than the next round of Taco Bell Star Wars Beenie Babies.
It doesn't matter that they would purchase it if they could find it.

What matters is the ROI to the copyright holder, who has run the numbers
and calculated that their profits are too low to re-press and re-release
niche music.


Hence, I don't see Napster going away. In its next incarnation, it'll
incorporate means of micro-payments so that the artists can be
compensated directly.

Also, for what it's worth, the big cards in the defense of Napster have
not yet been played in court yet. People have been able to record
off-of-the-airwaves for years, yet this hasn't deterred them from still
purchasing the official album -- which music sales over the last 30
years clearly indicates.

Part of the reason is that from a technology perspective, the AM or FM
broadcast of the song was inferior to the original record/CD. (I've
noticed a nasty tendancy of radio stations to make the song even more
inferior by talking through a song's introduction, blending two songs
together, cutting off songs, and other techniques to disrespect the
music and sell ad time.)

By this same argument, MP3 is inferior to the original and doesn't
lessen the desireability of the original, packaged version.


Don't let the arguments of the business blow smoke in your eyes.

As this relates to (technical) writing, the goal of most writers is to
be read. The goal is not to become rich off of the copyright, because
this is sure to lead to the work not getting read. Getting read by large
numbers of people has its own rewards, direct and indirect.

My two Schillings.

Glenn Conrad Maxey
maxey -at- privatei -dot- com
108 W. Byers Place #207
Denver, CO 80223 (USA)
(h) Tel. +1 303.282.4578
(w) Tel. +1 303.223.5164



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

Sponsored by Cub Lea, specialist in low-cost outsourced development
and documentation. Overload and time-sensitive jobs at exceptional
rates. Unique free gifts for all visitors to http://www.cublea.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.


Follow-Ups:

References:
FW: Supremes rule for freelancers: From: Glenn Maxey

Previous by Author: RE: Supremes rule for freelancers
Next by Author: RE: Supremes rule for freelancers
Previous by Thread: FW: Supremes rule for freelancers
Next by Thread: RE: Supremes rule for freelancers


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads