[GPSCC-chat] DA GREEN PARTY CLUB - A2K IS A HUMAN RIGHT - FORUM AT 1:30 PM WED MAY 1

Tue Apr 30 21:35:21 PDT 2013

Hi, Drew:

On 4/30/2013 8:02 PM, Drew wrote:
> Hey Spencer, your summary why copyright reform is needed for A2K human 
> rights is very helpful and I'll look for a way to include it in the 
> material.
>  :-)

       Thanks.  I'd be willing to help more.  That industry is due for a 
haircut.  Their excesses started Lessig on the road to "Republic, 
Lost".  Some of my perspective is beyond what Lessig mentioned in "Free 
Culture".  sg
>
>
> Green is GO!
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~*~*~*~
> Jill Stein for President -- A Green New Deal for America
> Campaign website:  http://www.jillstein.org/
> Climate Voter Power Pledge: http://www.jillstein.org/dc_climate_protests
>     First TV Ad http://tinyurl.com/JillStein1stAd
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
>     *To:* perrysandy at aol.com
>     *Cc:* sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org; Drew <Rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com>
>     *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2013 4:31 AM
>     *Subject:* Re: [GPSCC-chat] DA GREEN PARTY CLUB - A2K IS A HUMAN
>     RIGHT - FORUM AT 1:30 PM WED MAY 1
>
>           I wish to share a perspective on this as the author of 2
>     books, 30 published technical papers, 3 patents and software used
>     all over the world:
>
>
>                 1.  The copyright clause in the US constitution says,
>     that "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
>     securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
>     Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."  Virtually
>     all the changes in copyright law over the past 40 years have
>     violated this purpose, extending the copyright period from a max
>     of 28 years to 99 and essentially infinite, and broadening the
>     range of application to "derivative works" with such vague
>     language as to give the major media conglomerates legal grounds
>     for SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation) suits
>     against potential competitors.  My primary reference on copyright
>     law is the Wikipedia article on "Free Culture (book)".  The
>     industry successfully sued lawyers who represented MP3 and venture
>     capitalists supporting Napster on questionable grounds with the
>     sole purpose reducing competition to the major media
>     conglomerates.  The industry won, because the lawyers and venture
>     capitalists knew that they could not afford the legal fees to
>     fight the cases because the copyright laws were too vague;  they
>     settled out of court.  This and other actions have a chilling
>     effect on creativity.  Lessig in "Free Culture" claims the first
>     commercially successful Mickey Mouse cartoon movie, "Steamboat
>     Willie", might not have been produced under current copyright law,
>     because that cartoon might have been considered a "derivative
>     work" of a Buster Keaton film, "Steamboat Bill, Jr.", produced
>     earlier that year.  The most dynamic comics industry in the world
>     is in Japan, because the Japanese simply refuse to use the
>     existing copyright law (written to comply with international norms
>     established essentially be US law).
>
>
>                 2.  Virtually 100% of the application of current US
>     copyright law to technical articles violates the provisions of the
>     US constitution "to promote the progress of science and useful
>     arts".  I'm an author on 30 published technical papers.  I was
>     required to transfer the copyright to the publisher for the vast
>     majority of those in exchange only for the privilege of seeing the
>     work published.  That made sense prior to the Internet.  It no
>     longer makes sense, even for archives of journals published prior
>     to the Internet.  These could be digitized at a relatively low
>     one-time cost and made available to the world for free.  They
>     aren't, because US copyright law is outdated and maintained by the
>     legalized bribery of our current system of private financing
>     political campaigns in the US.
>
>
>                 3.  I've received small royalty payments for one of
>     the 2 books.  The royalty is nice, but it's so small, it was NOT
>     even considered in my decision on whether to write that book.  The
>     only reason I agreed to have the book published by Springer was
>     because they have established distribution processes.  I would
>     have preferred web publishing, but my lead co-author had a
>     relationship with Springer, so I didn't fight that.  However,
>     again, the my motivation in producing that work was unrelated to
>     what the publishers tell congress about that, and the copyright
>     violates the constitutional purpose of copyright law.
>
>
>                 4.  Popular textbooks may be different:  I don't know
>     for sure, but I believe that the royalties from popular textbooks
>     for established technical authors can be substantial and can
>     encourage the production of such textbooks.  However, Wikiversity
>     provides a platform for collaborative production of training
>     materials under the Creative Commons attribution share-alike
>     license.  Wikimedia projects include a feature to "Create a book":
>     Any prof can create the book they want from established content in
>     Wikimedia projects tailored to what they think should be taught.
>     Profs all over the world collaborate to create that content.  This
>     is a mechanism for providing access to the best available
>     knowledge selected by local profs that does not rely on
>     established book publishers, which justify huge royalties based on
>     the relatively low production volumes. Once again, we don't need
>     to pay individual authors to write popular textbooks:  We can get
>     better textbooks from committees of profs teaching similar
>     material all over the world, kept as current as profs can keep
>     themselves current.  And again, the constitutional purpose for
>     copyright law is violated but too a lesser extent than for
>     published technical papers and research monographs.
>
>
>           Thanks for organizing this event.  Feel free to quote me if
>     you think it could be useful.
>
>
>           Spencer
>
>
>     On 4/25/2013 10:51 PM, perrysandy at aol.com
>     <mailto:perrysandy at aol.com> wrote:
>>     *frE uR tXbk$!*
>>     *A2K: **Access**to Knowledge***
>>     "Information is power. But like all power, there are those who
>>     want to keep it for themselves. The world's cultural heritage ...
>>     locked up by a handful of private corporations ... The *Open
>>     Access Movement *has fought valiantly to allow anyone to access it."
>>     -- *Aaron Swartz 1986 -- 2013, A2K hero & martyr.*
>>     *May Day A2K!*
>>     *A2K = a human right*
>>     On May Day the traditional celebration day for liberation join
>>     *DR. CRYSTALLEE CRAIN*, and DA Student Trustee *VINCE MENDOZA,
>>     *to learn about De Anza Student Advocacy Group's work on
>>     *OER (Open Educational Resources)*
>>     *TIME: Wed. May 1 from 1:30 -- 3:30 pm*
>>     *PLACE: Student Center Conference Room A*
>>     Sponsors:*DA GREEN PARTY CLUB***
>>     Institute of Community and Civic Engagement
>>     Office of Equity, Social Justice and Multicultural Education
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     sosfbay-discuss mailing list
>>     sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org  <mailto:sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
>>     http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
>

-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20130430/02ca23fa/attachment.html>