!@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa

[Michael Lockey]

Thanks for all the early feedback.  I've responded (more or less) to Mr. 
Hart's comments since this whole gig really is his.

Michael Hart wrote:

> I'm not sure you want to know the history of the current copyright 
> extensions,
> but I think it goes back to the mid-60's, even before the United 
> States was
> working up it's extension from 28 + 28 years to 95 years without any 
> renewal.
>
My limited understanding is that it's every time 'Steamboat Willy' is 
about to enter PD that we realize the 'need' to protect Copyright.

>>  (Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our 
>> endeavours.)
>
>
> [Sorry, that parenthetical remark about jingoism when right over my 
> head.]
>
-I don't like DP-Canada, or PG-US, or anything that smacks of 
nationalism.  What we do is for the world, no ifs, ands, or buts.  If 
folk approve of my aims, I MUST fight here in Canada, and on the grounds 
that this is Canadian, since that's the battleground, and hence the 
company name: but even so, the site will be DP50, because that's what 
the fight's ABOUT.

I love DP-EU, and am trying to do my bit towards making it a success.  
But it's going to be a lot harder to fight the EU, which is already 
supra-national.  Here in Canada, we can fight these constraints at the 
NATIONAL level, not only for us, but for the rest of the Life+50 world.  
The other sides have established 'precidents' to justify their 
behaviour: we MUST do the same, and this locale is our best shot at it.

>> I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God 
>> help us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think 
>> we must fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power.
>
>
> I have always thought that the public domain was the GREATEST CIVIL 
> RIGHT.
>
> Yet we see that "the pen is mightier than then pen" when the leaders of
> country after country after country sign laws that rape and pillage the
> public domain rights to a million books here and a million books there.
>
Bingo. So let's fight.  Another issue that seems important to me is that 
PD has no RESPECT.  Again, using the evil rat's empire as an example: 
they feel at liberty to not only USE but ABUSE PD.  Aside from their not 
repecting Copyright themselves (reluctant to pay for The Lion Sleeps 
Tonight), I'm upset by their immoral use of PD material.  Hercules, with 
Hera as his mother, when she was his worst enemy? (Remember- it may be 
dead now, but we are talking of a religion, even if it is now extinct.)  
Pocahantas?  Turning a particularly vicious piece of history on it's 
head: rather like some fascist writing a movie about Saint Hitler and 
his missionary work among the Jews.  Winnie-the-Pooh, a Canadian symbol, 
that can't be used without the rodent's permission?  I could go on, but 
why bother?  The simple fact is that those who would deny us our 
heritage, are those who feel the greatest 'right' to steal and pervert 
the little we have saved.

This in turn raises an issue I've been trying to get my head around- we 
need to identify the stakeholders in all this.  Owners of Copyright and 
Defenders of the Public Domain are obvious: but what about the works 
themselves?  Who speaks for them?  Copyright NEVER 'protects' the work.  
In a Darwinian sense, the works are best preserved through 
dissemination, which Copyright actively seeks to inhibit.  Though the 
ostensible fight is over GWTW, the true victims are the millions of 
booksw doomed to extinction because the Copyright owner has no monetary 
interest in republication.

This, again, may provide fertile ground for a counterattack.  Laws on 
Copyright were established to protect Copyright holders, true.  But 
these are not Criminal, but Civil Laws, and based on a Quid Pro Quo.  In 
exchange for legal protection, which imposed a hard cost to society 
(administration and enforcement), the public received a benefit- PD.  
This is a Contract, to which both sides must adhere.  They want to chage 
the rules? -Fine; though I don't agree.  But to change them 
retroactively is to break the contract: had I money enough, I'd fight on 
the grounds that Copyright no longer exists, and that all works are now 
PD.  Can't do that, of course: but again, and fighting on THEIR grounds, 
I would argue that, since there is no intent to fulfil their side of the 
bargain, Copyright should be paid for, in recompense for the costs 
associated with enforcing it.  I hold patents, and have to pay through 
the nose for them.  I own my house; and must pay my title fees to 
protect my interests.  I see no difference with Copyright.  (And NOT 
after the work has established a market value: that's 'post hoc, ergo 
propter hoc' reasoning.)

> And with no mention by the major press or major media whatsoever. . . .
>
Well, try reading Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' to figure out that 
little conundrum...

> I wonder if it is because they think their own existence is dependent
> on copyrights to things that were copyrighted a century ago???
>
> I think the more likely explanation is that they simply don't want ANY
> competition to their wares, they want it ALL TO BE "PAY-PER."
>
> We have moved from the "PAPERLESS revolution" to the PAY-PER revolution.
>
Greed, plain and simple.  I note someone else using the term I've stuck 
by for years: it's the closing of the electronic commons.

>
>> Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation.  (Remember that a 
>> corporation may give away any amount of its profit.)  To download a 
>> work from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by 
>> the downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or 
>> individual, as a charitable donation.  In this way, DP-CAN will never 
>> directly receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be 
>> established.  If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials 
>> currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for 
>> damages.  My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if 
>> necessary.
>
>
> It is my own opinion that Larry Lessig, et. al., have done the most harm
> to copyright law of anyone. . .more details on request.
>
> These cases, which were once cases with my own name on them, are being
> lost in a manner that sets the public domain back much further than if
> the cases had not been brought at all.
>
Yes please; more details.  If we must fight, lets not make mistakes.

>
> By the way, US lawyers get the same "credit," as it were, for appearing
> before the Supreme Court whether then win or lose. . . .

Not, mercifully, true in Canada where, I also think, the courts are more 
likely to be sympathetic anyway, what with the various 'fair use' decisions.

>> Anyway- that's what I've been working on.  My sites are not yet 
>> viable: I'm working alone, so far.  Given the activities going on 
>> here, maybe I'll need to change some directions.  But I've structured 
>> this to FIGHT: and fight I will.  Hence the Company's Motto:
>>
>> THE BOOK STOPS HERE
>
>
> Love it!!!
>
> Of course, their might be something said in addition:
>
> Your support needed, or THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOK STOPS HERE.
>
> My apologies, I sorted through several ways to say that,
> and have not yet come up with the right one. . .any help?

A slogan should be terse, which is why I like my version- but I'm most 
assuredly open to change.  I was fighting alone simply because I WAS 
fighting alone.  If there's others in this, great.  I am most willing to 
turn over all my assets in this to anyone else, and will totally 
withdraw from any executive position if there is any suggestion that my 
ego or personal interests are involved.

But I really do think we must fight; fight hard, fight without mercy, 
and fight to win.

Perhaps we could have a face-to-face here in TO (other places, too!) to 
try and refine our goals and strategies.  And, once more, the Canadian 
disclaimer (maybe we should boilerplate it?)

Michael Lockey (Vasa)

PS: Ultimate Canadian Joke: 'I'm sorry I don't have anything to 
apologize for Today.'