Re: [h2o-discuss] more edges to IPR: we own the assassination... copyright for snuff films

[Eric Eldred <eldred@mediaone.net>]

mark 'marcello' weitzel wrote:
.... (see below)

I am having some conceptual difficulty in separating
the two commodities, the "thing-in-itself" (the film,
the source code, the original photo) and the "copyright
right" (which is first generational, not a derived right,
not therefore a right-derived-from-a-right, but rather
one of the original rights in the bundle-of-rights
created when the original was created).

To show that others seem to share this puzzlement, let me
point to the Washington Post article, where it is stated
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/feed/a20045-1999aug4.htm
that the market could not decide what the value of the
copyrightless original would be, and that the Zapruder
family initially asked about the same ($16 million) for
BOTH the copyright and the raw film, that they eventually
received for only the raw film.  And now apparently the
family will just give away the copyright to a nonprofit
institution?  Will the Kennedy family insist that nobody
be allowed access to the "publicly owned" raw film, or
that it be buried at sea?  If the copyright has no real
value without the original, then what incentive does it
provide for innovation and new creative expressions?  Instead
it would seem to have a negative incentive--for example,
a book collector might refuse to license publication rights
to anyone, buy all the existing copies except one, which
then assumes the ultimate market value?

How could someone own copyright to a work that is no longer
in fixed form, but that might even be deliberately destroyed?
If this is not legally possible, though, then could dances
be copyrighted if they are not fixed in Laban notation or
on film or something?  This also puts in question answers
to the example I raised earlier, the "Gough" case where
the painting might be destroyed and the copyright lingers on.
How could anyone prove that the copy was really a copy,
if the original had been destroyed?  Isn't there a public
interest in ensuring access to new creative expressions,
and not just arbitrarily granting rights or privileges
with no social purpose, that instead encourage the
sequestration and artificial scarcity of intellectual
property?

I agree it is fetishism.  But the concept of intellectual
property that we are opposing really assumes that it is
the same as real property:  the explorer "claims" the
unclaimed moon, improves it, and assumes a property right;
the inventor creates out of thin air a new invention (not
necessarily a product anymore); the author creates out of
his genius the "original" creative expression that is
thereby copyrighted; the fox hunter shoots the fox and
so it is his, not the property of the one who chased it.

What we have to oppose against that is that there are
contradictions that can only be unraveled if we abandon
the idea that all intellectual property must be owned
by somebody, that the public domain does not really exist,
or if it does, has no value unless some genius claims it.
We have to argue that intellectual property is owned by
all us humans and that we only give up limited rights to
others to exploit it, and only on the condition that the
public gets an equal amount back.  If we can't show this,
then the fetishism of commodities will continue to extend
to the domain that should be ruled by the search for
truth and beauty, and the law will continue to be
tied up in contradictions such as these.


> re:  zapruder... i'm very glad you pointed out the angle on 'the raw
> film' == source  versus the uses of the (virtual, now digital) 'images'
> --  (two modes of which can sometimes be separated:  control and profit
> ) because that flew right by when i noticed that this morning... i was
> thinking about that from the angle of this 'arbitration board' --
> however that was constituted-- (sort of in reference to the MANDATORY
> dispute resolution procedures that still seem to be a part of the ICANN
> WIPO wipeout in process ) -- one of whose members... the dissenter...
> thought that the amount, 18 mill,  'was just too high'...  all i can say
> is that he must have been 'just too high'...  are you crazy?   the
> zapruder film?  with all the 100 gazillionaires floating around?  it
> might as well be the shroud of turin...  the fetish object to end all
> fetish objects...
> 
> but that, and the 'state of washington' problem,  actually brings up
> this whole thing about focusing on 'the source' in 'open source' that i
> think is a very similar kind of fetish but w/ more destructive
> consequences... the main one being focusing all this 'anal' attention ,
> effort , rhetoric, resources on the wrong thing:  the pristine 'ur-bits'
> .... caught by the final, low-level impulse of syntax/ materiality trying
> to maintain itself against looming (inevitable) 'virtuality'  ... or in
> other words:  the 'source code' is not the 'source'... it's already a
> derivative product/ deposit/ inscription/ residue...  EMULSION...  the
> real value is in the semantic/ functional/ operational/ knowledge/
> 'meta' level that the source is only a 'dead' (static) material trace
> of...

-- 
"Eric"    Eric Eldred      Eldritch Press
mailto:EricEldred@usa.net  http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
"support online books!" http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/support.html