<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Critiquing Copyright Canards &#8212; Part Four of Five</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/</link>
	<description>Copyright Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:02:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Copyright Alliance Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Review of Helprin&#8217;s Digital Barbarism &#8212; Part Two</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-20172</link>
		<dc:creator>The Copyright Alliance Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Review of Helprin&#8217;s Digital Barbarism &#8212; Part Two</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 18:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-20172</guid>
		<description>[...] again he is absolutely right, and that is our Canard #7.  One can write parodies at will, and make fair use, but even the president of the United States [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] again he is absolutely right, and that is our Canard #7.  One can write parodies at will, and make fair use, but even the president of the United States [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Copyright Alliance Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Artists, Property Rights and Andrew Jackson</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-15411</link>
		<dc:creator>The Copyright Alliance Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Artists, Property Rights and Andrew Jackson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:51:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-15411</guid>
		<description>[...] the Critiquing Copyright Canards piece, the eighth myth was that &#8220;Copyright is not a property right.&#8221; I understand that some long for a commons culture, and thus oppose all property as did [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the Critiquing Copyright Canards piece, the eighth myth was that &#8220;Copyright is not a property right.&#8221; I understand that some long for a commons culture, and thus oppose all property as did [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gustaf</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-10511</link>
		<dc:creator>Gustaf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:21:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-10511</guid>
		<description>Re: Shippcal

IF that is the case (golden geese going underground due to copyright reform, which I find highly unlikely), and we return to the days of folk music - Well... You say that as if it would be a bad thing.
Remember that those folk musicians around the camp fire  now can make their music available anytime, anywhere, to anyone in the world, not just the few sitting around their fire. For music, at least, the number of &quot;folk musicians&quot; in the world is enough for a supply of wide-ranging, high-quality music  lasting 24/7. 

Even if all golden geese (i.e. professional artists) stopped producing if we change copyright, which I find highly unlikely, every single one of us would still have access to more culture than at anytime before in the history of mankind. And we would have that access without loosing our civil rights, civil rights that the copyright industry right now is lobbying to remove, just in order to protect their business model.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Shippcal</p>
<p>IF that is the case (golden geese going underground due to copyright reform, which I find highly unlikely), and we return to the days of folk music &#8211; Well&#8230; You say that as if it would be a bad thing.<br />
Remember that those folk musicians around the camp fire  now can make their music available anytime, anywhere, to anyone in the world, not just the few sitting around their fire. For music, at least, the number of &#8220;folk musicians&#8221; in the world is enough for a supply of wide-ranging, high-quality music  lasting 24/7. </p>
<p>Even if all golden geese (i.e. professional artists) stopped producing if we change copyright, which I find highly unlikely, every single one of us would still have access to more culture than at anytime before in the history of mankind. And we would have that access without loosing our civil rights, civil rights that the copyright industry right now is lobbying to remove, just in order to protect their business model.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neal</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-4470</link>
		<dc:creator>Neal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-4470</guid>
		<description>&quot;I love seeing Patrick Ross weave one sensible, cogent argument after another and then reading the responses of people who simply wish to have free, unlimited use of songs and other artistic works.&quot;

I have never, ever argued for that. But that&#039;s the thing with the pro-copyright people. They&#039;re so eager to distort the fact, they&#039;ll openly twist the other side of the argument to make themselves look better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I love seeing Patrick Ross weave one sensible, cogent argument after another and then reading the responses of people who simply wish to have free, unlimited use of songs and other artistic works.&#8221;</p>
<p>I have never, ever argued for that. But that&#8217;s the thing with the pro-copyright people. They&#8217;re so eager to distort the fact, they&#8217;ll openly twist the other side of the argument to make themselves look better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shippcal</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-4468</link>
		<dc:creator>Shippcal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:04:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-4468</guid>
		<description>I love seeing Patrick Ross weave one sensible, cogent argument after another and then reading the responses of people who simply wish to have free, unlimited use of songs and other artistic works. 
Patrick is ringing a sobering warning bell over and over again - calling us to consider long-term effects.

Songwriters/composer/lyricists are geese who lay golden eggs.  These golden eggs are special creations that have given great enjoyment to the world for enduring generations in a way that has increased the quotient of human life through musical expressions that delight and inspire.

Those who cannot lay golden eggs (geese or otherwise) yet want free, repetitive, unlimited access to those golden eggs are likely to ignore the uniqueness of the &quot;golden&quot; creations and are increasingly taking steps to cut off the food supply and life-sustaining resources of the Golden Geese.
The Golden Geese are not renewable resources - when these creatures have been completely undermined and nominalized, there is no way to &quot;restock the tank.&quot;  

Picture a world in which no new generations of artists are being hailed and acclaimed.  When the incentive for laying golden eggs (creative control, royalty)  has been completely marginalized, and musical excellence is no longer rewarded, the Golden Geese will be driven completely underground (literally and/or figuratively).  They&#039;ll still lay golden eggs (they cannot NOT lay golden eggs), but folks will only find them sung round the minstrel campfires.  We&#039;ll return to the days of folk music.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love seeing Patrick Ross weave one sensible, cogent argument after another and then reading the responses of people who simply wish to have free, unlimited use of songs and other artistic works.<br />
Patrick is ringing a sobering warning bell over and over again &#8211; calling us to consider long-term effects.</p>
<p>Songwriters/composer/lyricists are geese who lay golden eggs.  These golden eggs are special creations that have given great enjoyment to the world for enduring generations in a way that has increased the quotient of human life through musical expressions that delight and inspire.</p>
<p>Those who cannot lay golden eggs (geese or otherwise) yet want free, repetitive, unlimited access to those golden eggs are likely to ignore the uniqueness of the &#8220;golden&#8221; creations and are increasingly taking steps to cut off the food supply and life-sustaining resources of the Golden Geese.<br />
The Golden Geese are not renewable resources &#8211; when these creatures have been completely undermined and nominalized, there is no way to &#8220;restock the tank.&#8221;  </p>
<p>Picture a world in which no new generations of artists are being hailed and acclaimed.  When the incentive for laying golden eggs (creative control, royalty)  has been completely marginalized, and musical excellence is no longer rewarded, the Golden Geese will be driven completely underground (literally and/or figuratively).  They&#8217;ll still lay golden eggs (they cannot NOT lay golden eggs), but folks will only find them sung round the minstrel campfires.  We&#8217;ll return to the days of folk music.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neal</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-4438</link>
		<dc:creator>Neal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:56:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-4438</guid>
		<description>The founding fathers imagined perpetual copyright just like they were evangelical Christians, right Patrick?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The founding fathers imagined perpetual copyright just like they were evangelical Christians, right Patrick?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Gordon</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-4423</link>
		<dc:creator>John Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:11:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-4423</guid>
		<description>Yes, but the Founding Fathers did not contemplate a life-plus-70 term of copyright, statutory damages out of any conceivable proportion to harm suffered, and certainly not anti-circumvention (&quot;picking the lock on your home library door is illegal.&quot;) And these factors have a lot to do with whether a government-granted monopoly (you appear to agree that copyright is such) is good public policy or not. The devil&#039;s in the details.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, but the Founding Fathers did not contemplate a life-plus-70 term of copyright, statutory damages out of any conceivable proportion to harm suffered, and certainly not anti-circumvention (&#8220;picking the lock on your home library door is illegal.&#8221;) And these factors have a lot to do with whether a government-granted monopoly (you appear to agree that copyright is such) is good public policy or not. The devil&#8217;s in the details.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Ross</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-4420</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Ross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-4420</guid>
		<description>It states clearly why copyright is needed, empowers Congress to implement it, and Congress did in its very first Congress.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, in Federalist Papers # 43 wrote strongly in favor of copyright and its inclusion in the Constitution, saying its &quot;utility can scarcely be questioned,&quot; it was a &quot;right of common law,&quot; and &quot;the public good fully coincides&quot; with copyright.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It states clearly why copyright is needed, empowers Congress to implement it, and Congress did in its very first Congress.</p>
<p>James Madison, the father of the Constitution, in Federalist Papers # 43 wrote strongly in favor of copyright and its inclusion in the Constitution, saying its &#8220;utility can scarcely be questioned,&#8221; it was a &#8220;right of common law,&#8221; and &#8220;the public good fully coincides&#8221; with copyright.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Gordon</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-4409</link>
		<dc:creator>John Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:46:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-4409</guid>
		<description>&quot;Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, where artists and inventors are given “the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

WRONG. The Constitution doesn&#039;t establish copyright, it just gives Congress the power to pass a copyright law. The contours of that law are up to Congress, and ultimately voters. Apparently Larry Lessig is not the only one who tries to constitutionalize the details of copyright law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, where artists and inventors are given “the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”</p>
<p>WRONG. The Constitution doesn&#8217;t establish copyright, it just gives Congress the power to pass a copyright law. The contours of that law are up to Congress, and ultimately voters. Apparently Larry Lessig is not the only one who tries to constitutionalize the details of copyright law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neal</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/12/critiquing-copyright-canards-part-four-of-five/#comment-4387</link>
		<dc:creator>Neal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=347#comment-4387</guid>
		<description>“Copyright is a monopoly.” Yes, but it’s not clear why that is bad.&quot;

The problem is that one collective body (MPAA/RIAA) are trying to dictate to the entire *world* how they can and can&#039;t use something they&#039;ve bought. 

The world doesn&#039;t work like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Copyright is a monopoly.” Yes, but it’s not clear why that is bad.&#8221;</p>
<p>The problem is that one collective body (MPAA/RIAA) are trying to dictate to the entire *world* how they can and can&#8217;t use something they&#8217;ve bought. </p>
<p>The world doesn&#8217;t work like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

