!@!Re: [Upd-discuss] a longer term strategy for promoting thepublicdomain?

[Michael Hart]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, David Basskin wrote:

>
> On 21-Aug-04, at 1:49 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
>>> 
>> 
>> For one case of a few people making money by free distribution of software
>> they wrote, with some comment on the position of musicians, see
>> 
>> http://grep.law.harvard.edu/features/04/08/18/112237.shtml
>> 
>
>
> I'm at something of a loss to understand why you pointed me to this page. 
> Anyone who wants to give away his or her songs or recordings is just fine 
> with me. Go for it! If doing so makes them happy, or furthers their careers, 
> or serves some other goal which is meaningful to them, I wish them all the 
> success in the world and I hope they learn valuable lessons in doing so that 
> they can share with us.

OK. . .here's a perfect example of a 20 million selling recording artist
doing exactly what you mention above, and receiving more money from fans
who download his music and love it so much they sent him more money in a
couple years than he ever made from the 20 million records he sold via a
few of the major labels.

Roger McGuinn has a site at ibiblio.org, just as does Project Gutenberg,
and he puts his tunes up there for free downloading. . .and is rewarded.

Of course, the media won't report that he is doing better this way than
he did working through the major labels.


> If software writers can do the same thing with what they create, more power 
> to them. If creators want to seek alternative modes or channels of 
> distribution and eschew the established players who dominate the commercial 
> world, I think that's great. Innovation is always exciting, and success is 
> always good.

This is exactly what McGuinn has been doing. . .for years. . . .


> What I have a problem with, and always will, are those who want to extend 
> this model to the works of songwriters and performances of musicians who 
> don't wish to have their work distributed without compensation, or by means 
> which they have not authorized, whether those works or recordings are owned 
> by individuals or corporations. Almost everybody who takes the "information 
> wants to be free" tack prefaces his or her remarks with, "now, of course, I 
> believe that musicians and songwriters are entitled to be paid for what they 
> do," and then goes on to praise the flavour du jour of uncompensated 
> distribution.

Well, here is the perfect example for you.


> To argue in favor of uncompensated, unauthorized distribution of songs and 
> recordings whose creators and owners have not or would not, if asked, 
> authorize such distribution, is to argue that they should work for free. And 
> the last time I looked, forced, unpaid labour was slavery. Simply because the 
> value that resides in recordings of songs can be realized without the consent 
> of their respective creators and owners or their active involvement doesn't 
> meaningfully distinguish it from slavery.

You obviously don't understand creative people.

All in all, I haven't made any more in my 1/3 century with Project Gutenberg
than I would have with Burger King, McDonald's or Wendy's. . .but I wouldn't
trade places with Bill Gates. . .and I've had a LOT more fun. . .and proved
you can change the world without money.


> If your view differs, perhaps you'd like to come by tomorrow and mow my lawn. 
> I'm not paying, though.

"Ay, there's the rub". . .you are the fly in your own ointment. . . .

You would take without giving anything in return,
yet you chastise the person who gives it to you!!!


> David Basskin


Michael S. Hart
Founder
Project Gutenberg

PS.

The last two lines I wrote above remind me of the court case
in which someone was convicted of bribing a public official,
while the public official was found not guilty of taking it.

You will find that contradictions exist in more than words.