Rogue M. Vox | 2 Dec 23:54 2002

Richard Stallman 1st seminar

Hi Nick,
good to speak to you (briefly) tonight at the LSE.
forgot to ask if you got a recording done?

I'm particularly interested to have a second listen to RMS arguments in support of music sharing... I was
not particularly impressed by that part to be honest. If the FSF has for goal to achieve freedom for the
consumers in that area, maybe they should consult some insiders before spreading a message. I could
happily demonstrate that a system without record companies applied today would completely kill the
average semi-professional musician and as a result not benefit the public at all!

I liked his distinction on the type of work and the approach necessary in order to reform copyright in each
case though.

btw I'll be there tomorrow at around 6pm. 
If I can be of any help with leaflets or something, let me know.
Rogue
Simon Waters | 3 Dec 11:06 2002
Picon
Picon

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar

"Rogue M.Vox" wrote:
> 
> I'm particularly interested to have a second listen to RMS arguments in support of music sharing... I was
not particularly impressed by that part to be honest. If the FSF has for goal to achieve freedom for the
consumers in that area, maybe they should consult some insiders before spreading a message. I could
happily demonstrate that a system without record companies applied today would completely kill the
average semi-professional musician and as a result not benefit the public at all!

I'm fairly sure it is not a stated FSF goal, which is concerned
with software. But I don't remember RMS making clear who he was
speaking for, I assumed he was speaking for himself. Either way
I think it was intended to widen the debate, and make the
students at the LSE (and others) question the copyright bargain.

I'd like to hear your comments but I'm not sure this is the
forum for music copyright debate, then again it is too quiet in
here.

I suspect we need to distinguish the role of publishers in
making copies of information (hardly difficult these days) for
the other roles a publisher may fulfil - promotion, recording
facilities etc. 

Although in the examples given the promotion was paid for by the
musicians out of royalties, and presumably promoters would still
exist and get paid in whatever structure results. The objection
is that publishers seek (have attained in the US, so American
perspectives may be several months or years ahead of European
experiences) to make it harder to copy, and thus retain their
monopoly on doing something which is essentially trivial. The
(Continue reading)

Tom Weiss | 3 Dec 11:22 2002

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar

www.creativecommons.org is a good place to start for non-software 
related copyright issues.

t.

Simon Waters wrote:

>"Rogue M.Vox" wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm particularly interested to have a second listen to RMS arguments in support of music sharing... I was
not particularly impressed by that part to be honest. If the FSF has for goal to achieve freedom for the
consumers in that area, maybe they should consult some insiders before spreading a message. I could
happily demonstrate that a system without record companies applied today would completely kill the
average semi-professional musician and as a result not benefit the public at all!
>>    
>>
>
>I'm fairly sure it is not a stated FSF goal, which is concerned
>with software. But I don't remember RMS making clear who he was
>speaking for, I assumed he was speaking for himself. Either way
>I think it was intended to widen the debate, and make the
>students at the LSE (and others) question the copyright bargain.
>
>I'd like to hear your comments but I'm not sure this is the
>forum for music copyright debate, then again it is too quiet in
>here.
>
>I suspect we need to distinguish the role of publishers in
>making copies of information (hardly difficult these days) for
(Continue reading)

Gordon Joly | 3 Dec 12:04 2002
Picon

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar


RMS outlined three types of works in his thoughts on copyright

1) Teaching technical

2) Artistic - novels

3) Monographs - the thouhts of a single author

He suggested that the copyright might expire in different timescales for each class. For the first,
copyright expired immediately - no copyright.

****

I wanted to ask Stallman which class the GNU Public Licence (GPL) full under?

****

I know Larry Wall has "the Artistic Licence" for Perl:-)

Gordo

--

-- 
Linux User No. 256022///
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly <at> pobox.com///
Illtud Daniel | 3 Dec 13:00 2002
Picon

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar

"Rogue M. Vox" wrote:
> 
> Hi Nick,
> good to speak to you (briefly) tonight at the LSE.
> forgot to ask if you got a recording done?

If you didn't, there's a recording of Stallman at Aberystwyth
doing the same material earlier this year at:

http://www.6809.org.uk/audio/

Courtesy of Ciaran Anscomb.

     Part 1 - Copyright vs. Community in the Age of Computer Networks
     Part 2 - The Dangers of Software Patents 

--

-- 
Illtud Daniel                                 illtud.daniel <at> llgc.org.uk
Uwch Ddadansoddwr Systemau                       Senior Systems Analyst
Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru                  National Library of Wales
Yn siarad drosof fy hun, nid LlGC   -  Speaking personally, not for NLW
Ramanan Selvaratnam | 3 Dec 13:25 2002
Picon

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar


> "Rogue M.Vox" wrote:
> >[....] listen to RMS arguments in
> > support of music sharing... I was not particularly impressed by that part

Correction!
What RMS eloquently put forward  was a suggestion in the form of  a 
_proposal_ to legalise music sharing, so that better and efficient publicity 
would be generated for the musicians, which the music companies wrongly claim 
as their positive input.
Anyway it was clear (atleast to me) that music sharing was not at all the 
issue instead how _even_ such a questionable method of distribution, when 
legalised was a better alternative to the corporate music industry.

> > to be honest. If the FSF has for goal to achieve freedom for the
> > consumers in that area, maybe they should consult some insiders before
> > spreading a message. 

As a prooven master of *distibution* of works on the digital networks I 
believe the man is well placed to talk about it especially when the existing 
global monopoly on what is defined as music!! is full with words like 
insiders and outsiders modelled purely on commercial terms.

In my opinion the planet should entitled to be free to listen to its great 
heritage instead of EMI's threats (on global control on noise pollution).

> > record companies applied today would completely kill the average
> > semi-professional musician and as a result not benefit the public at all!

I would very much like to hear more about this via a private email. 
(Continue reading)

Ramanan Selvaratnam | 3 Dec 14:27 2002
Picon

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar

On Tuesday 03 December 2002 11:04, Gordon Joly  wrote:

> RMS outlined three types of works in his thoughts on copyright

I was there too.
What I heard was that RMS gets many queries as to how the successes gained on 
freeing software can be extended/generalised to other things.

He suggested that everything be catergorised by their purposes.
That way we arrive at three purposes
Functional , Entertainment and Representative.

>
> 1) Teaching technical
>
> 2) Artistic - novels
>
> 3) Monographs - the thouhts of a single author

I suspect we dare making the same points except for accuracy of the words 
used..
(I took notes :-)

> I wanted to ask Stallman which class the GNU Public Licence (GPL) full
> under?

Is it not that software programs were catergorised clearly with recipes, 
manuals, textbooks, reference works, (dictinaries , encyclopedias ...) etc as 
serving a functional purpose.

(Continue reading)

Nick Hill | 3 Dec 13:33 2002
Picon

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 22:54:19 +0000
Rogue M.Vox <rogue <at> chaosgenesis.com> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> good to speak to you (briefly) tonight at the LSE.
> forgot to ask if you got a recording done?
> 
> I'm particularly interested to have a second listen to RMS arguments in
> support of music sharing... I was not particularly impressed by that part
> to be honest. If the FSF has for goal to achieve freedom for the
> consumers in that area, maybe they should consult some insiders before
> spreading a message. I could happily demonstrate that a system without
> record companies applied today would completely kill the average
> semi-professional musician and as a result not benefit the public at all!

There is a philosophical/ freedom correlation between freedoms to copy
music and to copy software. AIUI, RMS believes there is a strong basic
support in younger people for freedom to copy music. He is talking music
to tap into that support to bring together those supporting music copying 
and free software.

The video recording will be available in free formats from the LSE web site
soon. I will have a copy either from the camera I had today or from LSE
directly. I believe the LSE recording will be better so will use that if I
get the required rights delegated.

I am sure RMS would like to discuss any better systems of arranging things
for semi-professional musicians.

> I liked his distinction on the type of work and the approach necessary in
(Continue reading)

Tom Yates | 3 Dec 10:43 2002
Picon

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Rogue M. Vox wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> good to speak to you (briefly) tonight at the LSE.
> forgot to ask if you got a recording done?

frog!  i meant to record it as well, and forgot to take the kit.  i
thought it was a good talk, though.

> I'm particularly interested to have a second listen to RMS arguments in
> support of music sharing... I was not particularly impressed by that
> part to be honest. If the FSF has for goal to achieve freedom for the
> consumers in that area, maybe they should consult some insiders before
> spreading a message. I could happily demonstrate that a system without
> record companies applied today would completely kill the average
> semi-professional musician and as a result not benefit the public at
> all!

i'll take issue with that <grin>.  i am also a semi-pro musician, and i'd
agree with rms that what big recording entities mostly provide is
publicity;  secondarily, thy're also finance houses, in that they advance
the money for recording (to be precise, they advance the technology
itself, and then charge it back to the artist).

he allowed that the first part is probably beneficial for the artist, and
by implication that it might be difficult to do without, and i'd accept
that.  but the recording technology is increasingly a matter for commodity
electronics.

the recordings i've done have either been done by small private studios 
(Continue reading)

MJ Ray | 4 Dec 02:05 2002
Picon
Picon

Re: Richard Stallman 1st seminar

Ramanan Selvaratnam <rama <at> uklinux.net> wrote:
> I tought AFFS could have done much better by having a stall with the usual 
> paraphenalia outside to alleviate such misunderstandings.  [...]

Yes, we could.  Speaking personally, I'm not 100% sure whether I knew much
of this event (was it on gnu-info?), whether the leaflet drop I heard talk
about occurred, or whether we had any offers to assist with this.  Not to
dwell on the past, what's the *next* place we should be in your area?

I'm back on my feet after a busy time and illness, so I'll write more soon. 
Apologies to anyone waiting on a personal reply from me.  They are coming.

MJR

Gmane