[HANASHIR:5222] Re: Xerox

[Judah Cohen <jcohen...>]

Adrian,

    Your discussion of the issue seems to highlight our differences on it.
I still think you're being too idealistic.  Linking yourself to an
"official" state system of copyright links you to money, the accepted
(albeit difficult, as you state) medium for such exchange.  You may not want
to accept the money you receive for "recognition," but the money, just like
your "intellectual property," will have your name attached to it no matter
what you do.  How you intend to use it (or refuse it) is a matter of
personal conscience.

I agree it is possible to be interested in *only* respect--and Kol HaKavod
for that.  However, when you move from an under-the-table system of
acknowledegment to our "official" State system, as is being advocated on
this list, money inevitably raises its head into the issue (note, please,
earlier posts in which artists discuss the amount of income they have "lost"
due to "illegal copying").  I understand that with the "under-the-table"
system, there is a great chance that artists will not be given proper
recognition due either to lack of knowledge or plain deviousness.  However,
using the established copyright laws brings with it equally difficult moral
dilemmas.  "Respect" is no longer just "respect" in these cases:  it can
become a comparative, and quantitative, commodity.

One example from my past:  While trying to obtain copyright information for
my Jewish a cappella group's first album, I approached the publishing
company that owned the song "Dona Dona."  I explained to a very nice woman
that my group was a non-profit group of college students, and requested that
they drop or reduce the royalty for distribution of the song.  The woman
called me back after doing some consulting:  she said the company would be
able to do away with the monetary royalty; HOWEVER, THEY WOULD NOT BE PAID
LESS THAN WHAT OTHER COMPANIES DECIDED TO CHARGE.  In other words, the
situation is far more complicated than you are painting it.

I also resent your use of the Shoah to prove your point.  If you honestly
believe that personal interpretations of copyright laws can bring about
fascism and genocide, then I will defer and allow you your opinion.
However, in America, we have a system of copyright laws which works fine,
and has prevented such situations in the past.  Remember that the "absurd
extension" of principles *also* caused Nazi Germany to rise in the first
place--partially because so many people idealistically adhered to them!

And Solomon's "extreme" form of justice--by this I assume you're using a
"split baby" story as an example--was a STORY in which such extreme justice
was merely suggested in the interest of bringing people to their senses.
(And yes, I am aware this can go in both directions, depending upon your
moral stance).  We are not dealing with parables here, Adrian--we are on the
verge of dealing with a real program that hopefully *prevents* us from such
extreme opinions.

And careful with MP3:  perhaps you have missed MP3.com's "pay for play"
promotion, which is distributing $200,000 to artists whose music is
downloaded from the site.  And remember that in addition to the draw for
"artistic integrity," MP3 is also great way to get out your frustrations on
the RIAA.  Antinomianism may play just as important a role as "getting one's
music out."

Be well.
Judah.

PS:  I still don't have anything besides vague references to "the Torah" as
precedents for intellectual copyright law.

----------
>From: "Adrian Durlester" <durleste (at) home(dot)com>
>To: <hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org>
>Subject: [HANASHIR:5214] Re: Xerox
>Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000, 11:27 PM
>

> Oh, Judah, I could not disagree with you more. Issues of copyright CAN be
> about money, but it does not ergo follow that they MUST be about money.
> Copyright allows an artist to protect more than financial gain from
> intellectual property. Copyright can be used, for example, to prevent
> someone from so distorting someone else's intellectual property that the
> work is no longer derivative but a travesty. Also, many copyright owners
> decline royalty payments, or turn them over to charitable foundations. My
> interest in my intellectual property may solely be for purposes of
> self-satisfaction through recognition of my work which does not gain me
> remuneration. I may freely allow my work to be used, but I can be assured
> that I will be identified as the creator. (One could argue that it enhances
> reputation, thereby producing potential gain, but that is a dubious
> argument. Some inventors never kept a dime of their profits from their
> inventions.) While copyright law is handled effectively through a system of
> monetary remuneration, and that is how it is usually treated by the courts
> as an issue, just as with many aspects of our legal system, there is often a
> higher ethic driving the more practical sides of justice. The Torah and
> Talmud recognize the difficulty of dispensing justice in many cases, and
> effectively establish the idea of monetary compensation, which the rabbis
> greatly elaborated upon. But it is because it recognizes the practical
> difficulty of dispensing justice, not because Gd believes that money can
> really repay for injustice done.
>
> I think "moral noodle-whipping" is called for. After all, is that not the
> role that Amos, Hosea, Micah, Joel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Obadiah, Habakkuk, et
> al filled? The only reason to be afraid of the existence or revelation of a
> slippery slope is the self realization that one is already sliding down it!
>
> Yes, the "xerox" issue is a somewhat absurd extension of the principle, and
> yes, the term has come into common usage, and Xerox, like Kleenex, probably
> benefits from that more than being hurt. But if you had asked the typical
> German who helped bring Hitler to power (or the typical American, Brit or
> European who watched it happen) if it was likely he would later exterminate
> so many so ruthlessly, they would argue that this might be an absurd
> extension of his current rhetoric. The same might be argued about Jorg
> Haider. No, due vigilance is called for, and is always appropriate. I'd
> rather err on the side of being overly protective and over cautious, and
> progress, which is a capitalist ideal, be damned.
>
> Did not wise Solomon utilize an absurd extension of justice in order to
> bring about true justice? Sometimes it pays to be a little extreme.
>
> Is copyright law perfect? No. Personally, I side with the folks at MP3.com
> against the RIAA, because the recording industry has established an
> effective monopoly and gouges customer and artists alike for profit. While
> the business types see mp3 as a threat to profits, many independent artists
> (and even those affiliated with record labels) see it as a tool that finally
> gives them back control of their intellectual property, to distribute as
> they wish, in the form they wish. It is also proof to me that not all
> artists are in it "for the money."
>
> Adrian
> 

------------------------ hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org -----------------------+