Re: The Politics of Media Distribution (Re: Press Action Hero of the Week

Gilles d'Aymery wrote:
> Dear David (and Hello again Aaron),
> 
> Thank you for your e-mail. I think that we could have a constructive 
> exchange of views. First it would be useful if you could stop inferring 
> too much about what I do and what I think.

Let me start by saying, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work
being done at Swan's.  However, you are using copyright law to limit the ways
in which Swan's content can be copied and distributed and I believe this is to
the detriment of your publication.  It is out of respect for your work that I
have taken issue with your copying policy.

> You do *not* know for a fact that the authors and I "are incorrect in 
> thinking they know how to control that use so as to maximize its effect." 
> Neither do I know. One thing I know, however, is that my policy to control 
> the use of the content has nothing to do with maximizing its effect or its 
> dissemination, if you will. So, right there you are basing your opinion, or 
> opiniated judgement, on a false premise.

Yes, I misstated this.  I should have said, "it *would be* incorrect for the
publishers and author's of Swan's to think that they know how to control that
use so as to maximize its effect."

> You go further and assert that I am ignorant of the free software 
> movement and that I misread your comments. I happen to be quite 
> aware of the free software movement (since the late '80s) and of the 
> various *free* licences out there, some of which you included links. I 
> fear that you are too focused on that *specific* isssue -- that of 
> software -- and in doing so you may well be comparing apples and 
> oranges.

You characterized my argument as wanting to appropriate the work of Swan's as
my own and without attribution.  This couldn't be farther from the truth.  It
is also inconsistent with many Free licenses, including the two I mentioned
the Academic Free License and the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Neither of these licenses are software specific but apply to general works of
authorship, I might add.

> Allow me to answer your points, a), b) c) d) and e)

These are not my points.  These are the rights granted by the Academic Free
license.

   http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php

> a) To reproduce work in copies.
> 
> Certainly. I actually encourage this endeavor. Print as many copies as 
> you wish and hand them over to your friends and neighbors. Do not 
> hesitate to have any Swans' Work published in your local newspapers 
> or university magazines. You can even have any of them published in 
> the New York Times (I will owe you big time!). There is only a 
> couple of conditions. The Work *cannot* be changed and Swans 
> must be acknowledged, including its URL. Note however that this 
> encouragement does not include electronic dissemination through, 
> particularly, the Web, and to a lesser degree of importance, e-mail 
> distribution lists (I also have a particular revulsion for personal, self-
> centered blogs). In short, say ballistichelmet.org has a print edition, 
> you are most welcome to use any Work from Swans but you are 
> prohibited to republish any Work from Swans on your Web site 
> (there, you can, if you so choose, include a paragraph or a short 
> synopsis of the Work and point to its URL).

Ballistic Helmet does have a print edition, however we offer it both
electronically and physically.  We won't be able to print anything from Swan's
because our electronic edition will violate your copying policy and it is
unreasonable for us to change our production system to accommodate Swan's.
This would be true for the New York Times as well as they offer their paper
online.  This is too bad, your copyright policy is preventing the good work of
Swan's from getting to potential readers.

You could on the other hand, release the work under one of the Free Licenses
I've mentioned.  Both the licenses I've mentioned would protect Swan's work
from being claimed as anyone else's.  Both the licenses I've mentioned allow
for derivative works, but you could certainly disallow this specifically.  The
Creative Commons NoDerivs license does just this.

   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/1.0/

This would permit verbatim copies, complete with a copyright notice and link
to Swan's.  Yes, personal, self-centered blogs could publish Swan's content
verbatim, but I think there is a significant benefit that outweighs any
possible harm from blogs reprinting Swan's content.

> b) To prepare derivative works based upon the Original Work.
> 
> This looks to me as a software-centric requirement, but, even in the 
> writing world, this is acceptable and has been done for ages. It's 
> called *quoting* part of a Work with full attribution to the author of 
> the Work. I see no problem here. As said, this has been done for 
> ages.
> 
> c) To distribute copies of the Original and Derivative Works to the public.
> 
> Here you are both vague and all over the place. My answer to your 
> point a) should take care of your first proposition. And we need to 
> explore a bit more what you mean by derivatives work. If you mean, 
> re-writing the Work as you so please, forget it (except as a case study 
> in which you quote the original Work and offer an alternative writing --
>  but here again we fall within the quote-unquote concept that has been 
> used for ages).

As to vague and all over the place, again, these are not my words: it's the
language of copyright law that is vague.  Derivative work is an open concept.

> d) To perform the Original Work publicly.
> 
> Another example of vagueness. Perform publicly? Where, how? How do 
> you "perform" an essay "publicly?"  A public reading in your town's 
> square, in your local theater, in your dwelling? Sure, go ahead, read the 
> entire 10+ volumes of Marx's Capital to your heart and breath 
> contentment. And do the same with any of Swans' Work. Now, if you 
> mean, electronic performance, especially on the Web, forget it.

What about an audio recording of a reading?  What if that recording is online?
 What if I transcribe Swan's content into a format that can be read aloud for
the blind?  What if I put that online?

There are many channels electronic or otherwise that could carry Swan's and I
don't understand why you wouldn't want Swan's to be as accessible as possible.
 A Free license would allow you to protect your rights while ensuring this
accessibility.

Why is it that if it's the Web, forget it?

> e) To display the Original Work publicly.
> 
> And here again, sheer vagueness... How do you display Mona Lisa? 
> By puting a pic on your site, printing copies of the pic and distributing 
> it to your "neighbors?" When It's already on the Web site of the 
> Louvre Museum? How do you display the US Constitution in public? 

I'm not following this at all.

> How do you display the Work of a personal individual who may very 
> well not be interested in being "displayed". How do you display 
> *Madam Butterfly,* if you are an opera buff (and, btw, how do you 
> improve on it)? In short, same as c) above...

Obviously a person who is not interested in having their work displayed should
not release their work under a Free license.  I would assume they also
wouldn't publish their work on Swan's, or anywhere for that matter.

> I happen to dislike copyrights, yet was forced to use these laws by 
> circumstances. People where *stealing* and *scavenging* Swans' 
> Work (some of those people, I truly did not want any association). 
> Pieces were republished on the Web without even an 
> acknowledgement to their origin. Bigger sites would repost our work, 
> acknowledge us in tiny print and we would get no or little visits 
> originating from their sites (in another word, they took advantage of 
> Swans' work to advance their own interests). I've had pieces 
> reproduced under a different name. I've had pieces reproduced 
> without the accompanying notes. I've had pieces edited and then 
> reproduced without alerting the audience to the edits. And I can go 
> on, and on.

All of these things would violate the licenses I am suggesting, just as they
violate your current license, so I don't see how this is an argument against
Free licenses.

BTW, Google is in serious violation of your copying policy:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:hng_HiblzqMJ:www.swans.com/library/art10/iraq/+swans.com+resistance+in+the+eye+of+the+american&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

> In all instances, this was done by US based individuals and Web sites. 
> I got tired of this trademark -- US dismal intellectual integrity 
> (sorry...). The funny thing is that the only people who have a problem 
> with my policy are, guess what, US based. And even funnier, the only 
> people who are afraid of a call from an attorney are, guess what 
> again, Americans.
> 
> It works, thank you.

You could certainly seek legal recourse for any of these violations according
to the licenses I've mentioned.

> Meanwhile, I am developping Swans from scratch and we do have 
> 20,000 visitors a day here and then. In 1996 we had 2 or 3 a day. 
> No one is paid. Not even me. No one asks for money and we do not 
> even highlight this simple fact as you do so blatantly (in fairness, I will 
> in the short future ask for financial help. But it will be for updating 
> computers, software, and Web/e-mail hosting, not for personal profit -
> - and I will put those costs and amounts raised right up there on the 
> site).

You've pointed this out twice now, so I feel obligated to respond.  No one at
Ballistic Helmet gets paid for the hard work they do either.  On the contrary,
it has come at a significant and recurring cost to those that support
Ballistic Helmet.  Likewise, we have developed our site "from scratch".  We
are not so dissimilar in our endeavors.  Yes, we do say "nuthing for sale" on
our website, only because nothing is. (I have trouble seeing how this is
"blatantly" stated.)  Yes, we ask for donations, only because there is no
other way to sustain the costs of producing Ballistic Helmet.  I might add we
don't get nearly enough money in donations to cover the costs.  We offer our
weekly print subscription for free, so the postage, paper, and ink has to come
from somewhere.

> In conclusion, I'll be happy to have a sane and sound discusssion on 
> the various merits, so that maybe we can develop a better policy, but 
> I am reluctant to go on with phraseology, indictments, and overall 
> short, if not poor thinking.

Likewise.

I believe that Swan's would benefit greatly from using either the Academic
Free License or the Creative Commons license.  Perhaps you could respond
specifically to your problems with those licenses.

> PS  When refering to my last name, the correct way is to write 
> *aymery* not *d'Aymery.* But then, correctness is an oblivious 
> concept... Just refer to me as Gilles d'Aymery. Thank you.

My apologies.  In my defense, this is the usage from the article that sparked
this conversation in the first place:

   http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001288.html

David

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/