Grassroots Campaign Seeks Copyright Protection for Artists
Grassroots Campaign Seeks Copyright Protection for Artists
September 29, 2009
The Copyright Alliance has penned a letter to President Obama and Vice President Biden asking the Administration to “pursue policies of the rights of artists.”
The dispatch has been posted to the group’s website and is presented as a call to action, allowing artists and creators to sign the letter. At the time of this post, over 7,700 copies of the letter had been personalized.
The letter notes the following about those who affixed their signatures:
We enrich our culture with a wide range of creative expression, including music, film, software, video games, writing, photography, graphics, and other visual arts.
An appeal at the end of the communication implores Obama and Biden to:
Please pursue policies supportive of the rights of artists and the encouragement of our creative efforts. Without the proper respect for our rights and works today, it will become even more difficult for us to create in the future.
The campaign was drafted in response to The President naming Victoria Espinel as Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, a move the Alliance called “a strong sign,” and one they will be “watching with optimism.” The Alliance intends to deliver the letter this fall.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/19/10 at 10:21am
Valdearg: Lmao. I was just permabanned from the hannity forums for asking about her article. It was politely worded, and I made sure to imply that I was conservative. Seems to me like Hannity is in full damage control, at the moment.
Valdearg: Lmao. I was just permabanned from the hannity forums for asking about her article. It was politely worded, and I made sure to imply that I was conservative. Seems to me like Hannity is in full damage control, at the moment.
Posted 03/19/10 at 09:59am
Valdearg: CONSERVATIVE blogger Debbie Schlussel out's Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts as a SCAM! As little as 4% and 7% of the money collected in some years actually went to the benefits of the charity. A MUCH larger percentage was spent on luxuries for Hannity.
Valdearg: CONSERVATIVE blogger Debbie Schlussel out's Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts as a SCAM! As little as 4% and 7% of the money collected in some years actually went to the benefits of the charity. A MUCH larger percentage was spent on luxuries for Hannity.
Posted 03/19/10 at 07:36am
HarmlessBunny: Aussie election is underway. Apparently it is too close to call. Here is hoping Atkinson is knocked off his perch :)
HarmlessBunny: Aussie election is underway. Apparently it is too close to call. Here is hoping Atkinson is knocked off his perch :)
Posted 03/19/10 at 06:46am
nightwng2000: design by a French TV show by its more broad representation? http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7337029
nightwng2000: design by a French TV show by its more broad representation? http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7337029
Posted 03/19/10 at 06:45am
nightwng2000: Have the video game psychological studies about administering pain to someone else been proven misleading in their narrow.....
nightwng2000: Have the video game psychological studies about administering pain to someone else been proven misleading in their narrow.....
Posted 03/19/10 at 01:50am
hayabusa75: Flamespeak: Shhh, the Dems might hear you ;)
hayabusa75: Flamespeak: Shhh, the Dems might hear you ;)
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:41pm
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:39pm
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
Posted 03/18/10 at 08:04pm
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:44pm
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:05pm
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:04pm
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Posted 03/18/10 at 05:21pm
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Was this really necessary? The last time I checked the U.S. was fast moving towards the abolishment of consumer ownership of anything you couldn't say you 100% created on your own.
You already don't own the video games you buy or ANYTHING you download (even if downloaded legally).
I am all for people being able to own and control their work and to be the only entity allowed to make money from it. Copyright does bring us things we wouldn't have without such assurances, like many of the medicines currently on the market.
I think this should be carefully balanced against the consumer's right to use that product as they wish once they have paid for it. A lot of DRM takes away this control in the guise of "IP protection" when really I think they are just trying to squeeze more money out of consumers.
Medicine has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
That would be patent. Hence, the term "patent medicines."
I was talking about IP laws in general. Copyright is the right to reproduce work. I know that. I was referencing a bigger problem with the balance between the consumer and the rights holders when it comes to IP law here and abroad. Way to miss the broader point by focusing on the details.
Copyright law needs reforming, but in the opposite direction of that proposed. Let's focus less on the rights of artists and more on the interests of the public domain.
I think one of the main problems is that people don't understand the difference between the rights of the artist and the rights of the publisher. These are two SEPERATE entities in most of the situations gamers deal with. Very few developers are their own publishers.
If you don't support the developer/artist, you don't get any IP to divide rights to between consumers, artists and others. If you have a beef with the industry as a consumer you need to focus your anger on publishers and retailors, not on developers who just churn out content and hope to god they get paid and their company doesn't go belly up. If you're a developer you can carry anger for the publishers who take too large a piece of the revenue from your work, the retailors who are actively trying to lower new sales in support of used sales, and the "consumers" who never buy new or never buy period (pirating).
The evils that make the market the horrible place it is are: Greedy retailors, Greedy publishers and greedy consumers. SOMETIMES the publisher is the developer, but you also have to remember even in that model it's never going to be the game designer or content creators who are handling pricing and sales. Even in a self-published environment they have someone else handling those details.
EDIT: Decided to put the lists of bads in order of their effect on the market.
I am in favor of copyright changes that do more for artists and creators.
This is seperate from copyright changes that help the big gatekeepers who end up holding all the cards under the current system.
The whole copyright debate tends to focus around 'creators vs consumers' when it should be 'creators and consumers vs gatekeepers'
You can say that and feel good that you support the "little guy" and not the evil corporations but who do you think is launching these people's careers? Who pays the large promotional fees, has the radio contacts, etc? If it weren't for these "gatekeepers" a lot of artists wouldn't be as large as they are today.
I wonder if this is copy protection from the people or from corporate..... shearing is a right IMO but selling is always the right of the IP ownerwe need to understand this and kill off the dinosaurs of the industry so the industry will be slimmer and more apt to make a profit.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I cant agree that this is a grassroots movement, since copyright cartels have been asking for more rights for as long as copyright existed. We should also consider that many artists end up signing away their rights for material that they created as a preliminary term to even get paid.
And then they don't even see much of the move their product brings in, most ofit goes to the IP holder.
My only problem is this organization wants to charge for the 30 second sample on iTunes, which I think is beyond absured. It is one thing to say, "Hey, artists deserve more from record sales and song downloads" and another to say, "Hey, whenever more than 5 seconds of an artists song is played, they get paid, even if the song is played to help people decide if they want to purchase it." There are better ways to lobby for a fair share than this.
Foaming at the mouth