Showing posts with label Culture Vs. Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture Vs. Copyright. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Culture Vs. Copyright by Anatoly Volynets - Attention Authors...

Materials Beyond My Review was Used Under... 


Anatoly Volynets: Contents
Sasha Willins: Graphic Design & Editing
Ilya Volynets-Evenbach: Technical Support & Structure

Permission is hereby granted to anyone to use, copy, redistribute, or create derivative works from all the materials on the site and the site design and its elements for any purpose, as long as proper attribution in reasonable form is given to respective authors, clearly stated that all the materials are used under Authoright license, and functional link to this site and respective material on it provided.

The full text of Authoright License located at Dialogue of Cultures





Many of you may have noted that on the bottom of my Blog, the following is provided..
All Material Copyrighted to Glenda A Bixler But May Be Used With Appropriate Attribution Back
That was my decision... I wanted all authors, and others, of the books I review to be able to use them in any way they wished, as long as attribution was given... By now you will have seen most of the book posted on Book Readers Heaven, per the Authoright License provided by the author of the book... Culture Vs. Copyright is an excellent discussion of the issue of copyrighting law within today's culture...

I do not support the book one way or another as it relates to books or other types of cultural art; however, I do believe and recommend that every author read it.... For me, I want a book like this in print so I can easily reference it. On the other hand, you can now find the entire book here and on the author's site as well. The reason I do not support the book is not a negative statement. Rather, in my opinion, it is about time somebody started talking about this important issue in our ever-changing culture. I would consider this book an excellent tool, but there is much to consider, even though the book has covered just about anything that needs to be covered to start a major look of publishing! Note that the book covers all types of cultural art; I am writing purely on books, because that's what I know...


First Graders on the Magic Planet - Chapter 1

I was sleeping once and saw a dream. There was a strange planet. Something magical happened there every time an artist created a new work. The very moment the artist took his work out of his house the work became as widely known as it was talented. There was a specific law working there also: nobody was required to pay the artist while using his work in any imaginable way.
Amazed, I woke up and tossed and turned for the rest of the night, trying to grasp if there was any way for an artist to make money there? I couldn’t wait to bring this up with my first graders. They do so love magic! So the next morning I asked them about it, and look at what I got.

Who Gets Money on the Magic Planet and Why?

Alpha: There is nothing to talk about here. If nobody has to pay an artist, then nobody will, no matter how famous he is. I say, the more famous an artist is, the more money he loses on that stupid planet.
Beta: He ain’t losin’ money because nobody gets money there.
Gamma: How come?
Beta: If nobody’s has to pay for use of an artwork, then everybody may copy it and have it for free.
Delta: Yeah, except for the money spent on copying.
Gamma: So somebody does get money? The copy machines! Ha ha ha!
Kappa: And somebody owns those machines.
Beta: People could sell or rent copy machines and other things you need for copying, right? By the way, if copying takes money and time, then people may come along and do it for others, right? What are people that copy for others called?
Teacher: Publishers?
Beta: Publishers.
Alpha: So what? The artist still gets nothing. Only your “publishers” and the factories that make the Xerox machines. That’s not fair!
Beta: Hmm, this is interesting… The planet makes a work as known as it is good, right?
Delta: Right. So?
Beta: If it is known, then people want it…
Delta: Hey, hey, I’m starting to get where you’re heading. The more people want it, the more those publishers get, right?
Beta: Right, and they start to have a competition.
Delta: Yeah! Who can get people to buy more of his copies!
Alpha: What baloney! How can they have a competition if the work is the same for everybody?
Beta: How? How do they always compete? Some put lots of ads on TV―that’s how they compete. Some sell their copies cheaper―that’s how they compete. Some make their books in hardcover―that’s how! Everybody understands that!
Alpha: OK, OK. Publishers get money. They compete and steal each other’s business… All right, who cares? They don’t bug me. What about the artists?
Beta: What about them? Use your imagination, Alpha.
Alpha: Use yours.
Beta: I am. They all live there and know how it works…
Alpha: We know too. So?
Beta: So? Publishers know. The very moment a work pops out of the house, it becomes available for everybody.
Alpha: Yes, and you don’t understand, Beta. That’s the catch―the artist loses it right away!

What Does an Artist Get?

Delta: Careful there! To become famous for your work does not mean to lose it! It is the best thing that can happen to an artist!
Alpha: I love it! Everybody gets money, and the artist gets famous and hungry! What luck! Thank you sooo much!
Gamma: Hold on. Let Beta finish his train of thought. He was up to something.
Beta: I still am. And we are close…
Delta: I know, I know! I used my imagination! I got it―the publishers will line up in front of the artist’s house to get the next work first and have any advantage on the market!
Beta: And?
Delta: And they will pay to access it before it gets out of the house! They will fight and try to kill each other to get it today because it will be for everybody tomorrow!
Teacher: Well, not quite. Remember, it only becomes as known as it is brilliant.
Delta: Yes, yes, I got it. The more talented it is, the more fierce the competition!
Alpha: Oh yea, exactly! I wouldn’t stay in this line. No publisher would! What are the conditions for the business here? No, thank you!
Gamma: Nobody would do publishing?
Alpha: Nobody!
Beta: Great! Does anybody know where to buy a ticket to fly there?
Alpha: Are you that stupid? What are you going to do there?
Delta: I know―he is going to be the very first and the only publisher there! Right, Beta?
Beta: You bet.
Delta: He will become a mufti-billionaire in one month and hire all of us! Hey, Beta, do I deserve a good salary?
Beta: You bet. Everybody does, even Alpha.
Delta: What’s he for?
Gamma: What for? Who was igniting all of the talk? It’s worth paying for!
Delta: Igniting? You mean like a car?
Beta: Yeah, like a fire.
Alpha: You’re all crazy. I’m not going.
Kappa: All right, get serious.
Alpha: Yeah, I’m still wondering whether the artist really gets paid.
Gamma: Wasn’t it convincing―that long line of publishers under the artist’s window?
Delta: It actually was… They will line up, one hundred percent… after they learn that Beta bought a ticket and is going to cut them off!
Alpha: Hey, we wanted to be serious, didn’t we?
Beta: We are, Alpha. And we haven’t finished yet.

What Does a Publisher Get?

Gamma: Hold on, all of you. I want to ask Alpha what was wrong with the picture? Can you put forward some argument and save the exclamations for yourself?
Delta: Gamma, you always sound so smart.
Gamma: I was watching the news with my parents last night.
Beta: Well anyway, I don’t mind the exclamations, but I would like to get some more logical “ignition” as well.
Delta: Me too. Say something, Alpha.
Alpha: What, you can’t remember? I told you―nobody will pay an artist, all right?
Gamma: But how about a fat publisher that can pay to be the first?
Alpha: I don’t buy it.
Gamma: That’s all?
Alpha: All right. But he won’t pay much because all of the advantage expires the moment the work gets out!
Beta: Hey, Alpha, if you understand business so well, why don’t you use your imagination a bit more?
Alpha: I take that as an insult.
Kappa: Cool down, guys.
Delta: Hey, hey, I understand! He may pay the artist very well so that he keeps the work inside!
Alpha: So what? It gets outside when it gets published anyway!
Delta: So what? The first is the first! Customers value that! This is how a brand develops! It pays, all right.
Alpha: So what? So your fat publisher develops a brand. Oh, he makes money all right, but what about the artist?
Delta: Are you nuts? Who can’t remember now? How does the publisher gain all these things? He has to pay the artist, remember? He has to pay very well, remember!
Kappa: Cool down, guys.

Some More for the Artist

Beta: I have some more for the artist.
Alpha: More baloney, I’m sure.
Kappa: We are listening, Beta.
Beta: Yeah, listen and be the judge. First of all, that fat publisher will put on the cover that he paid for it, that he didn’t get it for free like the others did…
Delta: I know! I know! Hurray! Beta, you are a genius! All artists of all ages and nations have to pool money to raise a monument in your name! I will personally donate a few bucks.
Alpha: Oh yes. I’ll put in a few more to have all of your names carved in the pedestal along with the inscription “This is for a few stupid kids who wanted artists to starve and art to die.”
Kappa: Delta, why don’t you step down from your desk? Alpha, you are complaining, but you are the first to insult others.
Gamma: Delta, what did you want to say?
Delta: Don’t you get it? Any publisher can pay to the artist to write it on the cover!
Gamma: Why should they? They have it for free!
Delta: They sure do. But why, then, the first one does? Who wants it for free, can use it for free. Who wants to develop a brand, will pay! Get me? They pay for marketing, anyway. Payment to the author will be just one out of many marketing strategies. I would even say that every publisher would want to pay the author to have it on the cover that they paid. Only those who cannot afford it, won’t pay the author. Get me?
Gamma: Look what we have here! All of the publishers can publish the same work and will pay for this to the author?
Delta: And the work gets spread like crazy. The author gets exposed to unimaginable heights!
Alpha: Yeah, unimaginable. That’s the word. Good fantasy.
Kappa: I like that magic.

What If It Is Not Magic?

Beta: Actually, now I do not understand why that magic was even necessary?
Gamma: Why? Beta, what’s come over you? How was that artist initially exposed? Remember all the good stuff we just got! All the riches, the champagne pouring from the sky! If it were not for the magic, then there would be no publishers in a line, no money for the first sale, not the slightest interest in proudly putting on the cover “I sponsored this author!” Nothing, Beta, nothing, just empty pockets!
Delta: Hmm… well, actually, if an artist is not known to the public, there is no way for him to get paid on any planet…
Alpha: How do they get rich, then?
Beta: Frankly, I don’t care how it happens here… By the way, I’ve heard many times that only a handful of artists get considerable money. The great majority of them are starving artists, anyway.
Alpha: So? A talented one gets money, untalented―does not. What’s wrong with that?
Delta: What’s wrong with it is that it ain’t true. As simple as that. My father says it is a rare coincidence when real talent gets real money.
Gamma: This is not the case on the Magic Planet! I am dying to learn how Beta was going to provide the magic without magic!
Alpha: I’m not. All you fantasized before wouldn’t work! And anyway, it’s impossible.
Delta: Oh, that’s clever. You don’t want to hear what Beta’s up to because you think it wouldn’t work?
Kappa: It is too early to judge. Beta, what was it that you wanted to tell us?
Beta: Look, can you imagine that publishers and others, who want to use a work of art, are free to do so?…
Delta: Like on the Magic Planet!
Kappa: Delta, do not interrupt, please! You’ll never hear the answer!
Beta: OK, I’m continuing. Everybody is free to use it but is obliged to attribute the work to its author…
Alpha: So?
Delta: Ah… the author gets exposed with every single use of his work!
Gamma: Hmm. Let me see… If artworks are not free to use, each publisher will have his own stack of books.
Teacher: Oh yes, that’s true on our planet; publishers feel safe with their portfolios.
Gamma: Yeah, but if it’s free to use by anyone, no publisher feels safe with his own “portfolio” and has to search continually for more good stuff…
Alpha: So?
Beta: So, any new work gets attention, no matter what!
Delta: Yes, yes! If it is really brilliant, there is always someone to grab it and show it off!
Kappa: Delta, get down off your desk, please. Why are you getting excited so easily?

One Flaw in the Common Perception

Alpha: I can’t understand why they are free to use a work? Why shouldn’t they pay the author? It is so simple and reasonable.
Gamma: Is it? That’s what I thought yesterday too, but now I’m not so sure.
Beta: Why should they pay if it works anyway?
Alpha: …An author can be granted exclusive rights for publishing and trade them off…
Beta: And how does he get exposed then?
Alpha: Listen, Beta, I’m not calling you nuts now, but you don’t understand the simplest things. The author sells his rights, the buyer advertises and sells the work. Is that so complicated to you?
Beta: It isn’t, except that it won’t work for the author!
Alpha: Why on the earth won’t it!
Beta: Because, within your scenario the author depends entirely on that one buyer, his capabilities, intentions, and good will. The author’s fame is limited and cannot be anywhere near the fame he could enjoy from the entire competing publishing community!
Teacher: We can say “exposure” instead of “fame.”
Beta: OK, “exposure.” The author’s exposure is limited in Alpha’s scenario.
Alpha: I don’t buy it!
Kappa: That’s easy to say, Alpha.

Word to the Reader

Well, my first graders haven’t made very clear points, but who expected this? I was intrigued. I started to ask myself what I really knew about the subject, where to dig for these not-so-simple answers. All of a sudden, I realized that we were discussing pretty strange things, which are different in nature from material ones… And I could only find the slightest trace of this subject matter in all the fuss around copyright related issues nowadays. Finally, I found myself thinking about this question: what is the nature of art?
~~~


In the Preface, the author presents three different options as to how this book came about: Somewhat Real, Somewhat Fictitious, and Somewhat Poetic (which was a poem I used earlier)... 

Obviously, to me, the book is both non-fiction and fiction...  In fact, I believe the above chapter is part of the fictional part. In perhaps trying to put a light spin on a heavy topic, the author invites readers into, for me, my first "think tank." I do support that idea, but I had trouble believing that first graders actually said what was attributed to them... 

In other words, this reader didn't need the fluff...although I could have agreed much more with the format if it had been adults, since the words and thought-processes were well beyond any first-grader, even if they possessed a high IQ at that age... I do feel, however, that some type of brainstorming activity did occur to have the author enter into the book itself... What did I do? I read the discussions, ignored the silly interchanges between students, and read the brainstorming material... Funny, though, I didn't see as much of a direct correlation of that activity with the true content of the book as I expected... just my opinion, so I will say that it didn't detract much from the book...

First, there are indications that Culture is significantly changing, almost daily, due to the Internet and improvements in publishing methodology. One of the things I've seen is that more and more people are creating books. I use the word creating on purpose, because many individuals are merely doing online research on a topic and putting it into book format and selling it under that individual's name.

Which leads to, I believe, the most important issue that must be addressed by writers and other product creators... Do you write, paint, write music, etc., because you must--because it is your personal self-expression? Or are you writing, primarily, to make (or supplement) a living? 

The premise of gaining sufficient notice of your work is already being tested by virtue of the thousands/millions of ebooks that are floating around at no cost... At present, for those people like me, the reason we don't share/reproduce ebooks is because of ethics... But what of the people who automatically share books to as many friends as they'd like? And, of course, you could substitute music, vids, photographs, and so many more that can easily be copied due to advancements in electronic equipment.

The author's proposes that in using the Authoright License, which requires attribution for each time a book is shared, in essence creates a market for that author of his future books.

In creating the book, I believe the author has presented his concepts in a well-thought-out and objective fashion. I couldn't think of anything that was not covered in the book. Therefore, knowing something needs to begin plans for the future, this book certainly lends itself to being used for that purpose.

On the other hand, the author also owns a company and that company sponsored the costs for writing the book. There is a clear indication that money paid for individual artist creations has been an expectation up to this point. While I agree now is the time to begin to coordinate efforts and plan for the future, which does not mean giving thousands of ebooks, for instance, away, without any visible credit to the author, the topic is an important document for use in further discussions... If nothing more, finding arguments against the book can still move us forward in thinking about the future! Highly recommended...


GABixlerReviews

Culture Vs. Copyright - On Licensing in Cultural Affairs

Used Under... 


Anatoly Volynets: Contents
Sasha Willins: Graphic Design & Editing
Ilya Volynets-Evenbach: Technical Support & Structure

Permission is hereby granted to anyone to use, copy, redistribute, or create derivative works from all the materials on the site and the site design and its elements for any purpose, as long as proper attribution in reasonable form is given to respective authors, clearly stated that all the materials are used under Authoright license, and functional link to this site and respective material on it provided.

The full text of Authoright License located at Dialogue of Cultures




On Licensing in Cultural Affairs

An author may get money in different ways. Normally all these ways work fine when the artist is famous. In other words, when the artist is widely exposed. Exposure is that magic tool, which really turns an author’s work into money.
Hence, the question really is in what way does licensing help to expose an author?
Let’s see what we have on the plate today.

Possible License Features

Today an author or another rights owner can relinquish some or all of rights granted by law and thus to license a work for the following:
  • To be used freely
  • To be used noncommercially
  • To be used with attribution to its author or rights owner
  • To be used with notification of its author or rights owner
Just as easily, these uses can be denied and respective rights kept. It is important to note that today all possible rights of use can be traded for money or sold altogether. As of today, there is no legally enforced perpetual rights although existing ones granted for rather long periods of time.
An additional feature of a unique license is licensing of the license itself. The license can be considered by its author as usable on some open terms, particularly as a basis to build upon by other authors, or it can be restricted to the highest degree possible within a copyright law.
Any license in the fields of culture known to me is a set of different features from the above list.

Effects of License Features

Thanks to the dialogues between the first graders, I got a pretty clear understanding of the real effects of the features listed above, which are as follows:
  • Restrictions in use of a work (in reality, either via censorship or via publishing monopolies, patents, and other exclusive rights) shrink the market for it, put its author in a completely dependent position, limit the work’s spread, and twist its normal function in culture and society. It is particularly important to note that a work which is restricted to be built upon cannot be followed thus is effectively excluded from further development of culture until restriction term expires. All these are equally applicable to the situation when an author and his publisher are the same entity.
  • Noncommercial use, if allowed, does provide some spread of the work. However, the degree to which it can do so is naturally far smaller than that of commercial use.
  • Requirement of notification of use is just a light form of restriction of use.
  • Unrestricted use of a work provides the most possible exposure to it. In order to translate this exposure to its author’s fame, it must be combined with mandatory attribution.
All listed-above restrictions or so-called rights can be sold, and this is the way to get money by the great majority of creators as of today. However, said sale bring considerable material incentives to a selected few. The selection least of all depends on “talentness” of the work.
Attribution, in my view, is the one and only one requirement that must be kept forever and supported by law for it is a natural and unalienable right of an author. Attribution in no way prevents any use of a work. Public use without it is an absolutely ugly practice. It is the only real stealing which may happen in the field of culture. It is neither normal nor fair, regardless of its legality and all other circumstances, including material incentives to the author.

Legal Standing

Virtually, all open licenses known to me are claimed by their developers to be based on copyright laws. These laws are extremely restrictive in terms of the use of a work of art. A rights’ holder, having all these restrictions backed by law, can relinquish some of them at will. Thus, any use of a work under an open license in a way causes the user to enter into a contract with the rights’ holder on somewhat different terms than copyright. There are some weak points in described legal positioning:
  • Any license based on a copyright law lasts as long as the copyright does.
  • Copyright laws provide quite a different scope of rights and restrictions in different countries.
  • Cultural affairs are not regulated by copyrights only. There are about a dozen of related laws, acts, and rulings in the U.S. only.
Hence, a license, which is supposed to support the normal existence of a work of art, should somehow adjust to the above listed limitations in order to function. It seems necessary to provide backing for such a license today through some legal flexibility and put it in the very license body. This idea is reflected in the Authoright license.

Very Basic Analysis of Some Open Licenses

The above text provides a logical framework for analyzing licenses to manage cultural affairs. It is necessary to stress that the framework does not address music, songwriting, or any other specific area, but it does address, in my view, different fundamental culture-related issues. It is important for more than one reason particularly, because today, arts, sciences, and even engineering interlace each other to such a degree that it is often hard to distinguish between fields, genres and, in the end, laws applicable to a single work.

Licence Art Libre or Free Art License

Location: http://www. artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html

Excerpts

Knowledge and creativity are resources which, to be true to themselves, must remain free…
This work of art is subject to copyright, and the author, by this license, specifies the extent to which you can copy, distribute and modify it…
You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: – attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found, – specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals, – specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies…
This license is subject to French law.

Comments

The Open Art License contains the following major necessary features for normal functioning of a work of art:
  • Freedom of use: creative, commercial, and non-commercial
  • Mandatory attribution to the author
  • It is not limited to a specific cultural area.
  • It automatically applies to derivatives of a work licensed under Free Art License.
  • If the rights to a work are bought from the author, the Free Art License becomes invalid (though this is not openly stated in the license).
  • The license text itself is not copyrighted thus can be freely used to build new licenses upon it in all countries where copyright is not automatic.
Limitations embedded in the license are as follows:
  • The legal basis for this license is copyright law only.
  • It relies on French law only.
  • It does not offer incentives to a publisher and sponsor of the work and, consequently, limits the author’s incentives.

EFF Open Audio License

Location used to be at: http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php, but the license text is not there anymore. Here is an archive page referring to the license: http://w2.eff.org/effector/HTML/effect14.08.html#II

Excerpts

EFF’s Open Audio License provides a legal tool… providing freedom and openness to use music and other expressive works in new ways. It allows artists to grant the public permission to copy, distribute, adapt, and publicly perform their works royalty-free as long as credit is given to the creator as the Original Author…
The aim of this license is to use copyright tools to achieve copyright’s stated objectives of spreading knowledge and culture while preserving incentives for the author…
Original Author irrevocably and perpetually grants to the public authorization to freely access, copy, distribute, modify, create derivative works from, and publicly perform the work released under this license in any medium or format, provided that Original Author attribution be included with any copies distributed or public performances of the work, as well as any derivative works based on the work, as further described below.
Civil Liberties Unrestricted. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any fair use, the first sale doctrine, or the public side of the copyright bargain under copyright law, or to in any other way limit any rights bestowed under consumer protection or other applicable laws…

Comments

The following are some advantages of the license:
  • Freedom of use. Although, it is not directly expressed within the license, a work under it is not restricted to commercial or noncommercial use.
  • Mandatory attribution to the author.
  • It is not applicable to a rights’ holder that is not the author. However, sale of rights is not directly forbidden.
  • The license text itself is not copyrighted thus can be freely used to build new licenses upon it in all countries where copyright is not automatic. This means, you cannot fearlessly build another license upon it in the U.S.
  • It relies not only on copyright laws (country unspecified) but on fair use, first sale, and free speech doctrines, and, supposedly, on all legalities behind thereof. On the other hand, it is important to remember that such legalities can be null and void in countries other than U.S. Regarding support of the freedom of speech, it is mentioned in the aims of the license developers but not openly expressed in the “Terms and Conditions of Use” section. They may have been implying it in the fragment “or other applicable laws,” but since this is unclear, their backing of freedom of speech in this license is in question.
The following are limitations of the license:
  • It is limited to a use in music-related areas only.
  • It does not offer incentives to a publisher and sponsor of the work and, consequently, limits the author’s incentives.
  • There is a contradiction in the text when the license grants perpetual rights to the public while it can only last as long as copyright does.

GNU General Public License

Location: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Excerpts

Copyright © 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software — to make sure the software is free for all its users…
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish)…
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software…
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that re-distributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone’s free use or
not licensed at all…
This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License…
Activities other than copying, distribution, and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope…
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License…
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions…
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License…
If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License…
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program in proprietary programs.

Comments

The following are advantages of the license:
  • Freedom of use. Commercial and noncommercial without notification of use is directly expressed.
  • Mandatory attribution to the author and rights holder. This, in fact, translates into incentives for authors and their sponsors as well.
  • The license automatically applies to virtually all derivatives from GPL-licensed work, which ensures advantages to the public and right holders to spread.
The following are the limitations of the license:
  • It is limited to use in software production only.
  • It is based primarily on a copyright law although acknowledges possible interference with other laws, mostly with patent laws.
  • It does not, in fact, distinguish between an author and his sponsor but legally protects a rights holder, following, in this respect, copyright entirely.
  • The license text is copyrighted itself and thus cannot be freely used to build other licenses upon it.

Open Publication License

Location: http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/

Excerpts

The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that the terms of this license are adhered to, and that this license or an incorporation of it by reference (with any options elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is displayed in the reproduction…
Commercial redistribution of Open Publication-licensed material is permitted…
Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of the original publisher and author…
The copyright to each Open Publication is owned by its author(s) or designee…
If any part of this license is found to be unenforceable in any jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the license remain in force…
All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the following requirements:
1. The modified version must be labeled as such.
2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated.
3. Acknowledgment of the original author and publisher if applicable must be retained according to normal academic citation practices.
4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified.
5. The original author’s (or authors’) name(s) may not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original author’s (or authors’) permission.
The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or copy of the license. These options are considered part of the license instance and must be included with the license (or its incorporation by reference) in derived works.
A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the explicit permission of the author(s). “Substantive modification” is defined as a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes mere changes in format or typographical corrections…
B. To prohibit any publication of this work or derivative works in whole or in part in standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder…
Open Publication authors who want to include their own license on Open Publication works may do so, as long as their terms are not more restrictive than the Open Publication license.

Comments

The following are advantages of the license:
  • Freedom of use. On the other hand, the license sets freedom of choice by an author above freedom of use of his work by the public thus giving an author the right to limit use. Thus, we have “freedom to put limitations” on use, and this feature may be considered as “limitation of the license.”
  • Mandatory attribution to the author.
  • Mandatory attribution to the publisher. This feature makes the license attractive to a publisher and, consequently, potentially more fruitful for an author.
  • The license is not limited to a specific area of culture and can be applied to any form of publication.
  • It automatically applies to derivatives.
The following are limitations of the license:
  • As we mentioned above, the license may be extended to be more restrictive. It is interesting to note that the license allows an author to extend it by any unique features that put no additional restrictions on use of the work. Thus, the license allows for extra nonrestrictive features and extra restrictions as well, which is a contradiction.
  • It is based on copyright law only.
  • It is limited to publication activity only.

Creative Commons Licenses

Location: http://creativecommons.org/license/

Excerpts

Until 1976, creative works were not protected by U.S. copyright law unless their authors took the trouble to publish a copyright notice along with them. Works not affixed with a notice passed into the public domain. Following legislative changes in 1976 and 1988, creative works are now automatically copyrighted. We believe that many people would not choose this “copyright by default” if they had an easy mechanism for turning their work over to the public or exercising some but not all of their legal rights. It is Creative Commons’ goal to help create such a mechanism.
An idea is not diminished when more people use it. Creative Commons aspires to cultivate a commons in which people can feel free to reuse not only ideas, but also words, images, and music without asking permission — because permission has already been granted to everyone…
The free software and open source software communities have inspired what is sometimes called “open content.” Some copyright holders have made books, music, and other creative works available under licenses that give anyone permission to copy and make other uses of the works without specific permission or a royalty payment. Creative Commons hopes to build on the work of these pioneers by creating a menu of license provisions that people can combine to make their work available for copying and creative reuses…
With a Creative Commons license, people can copy and distribute your work but only on the conditions you specify here. Do you want to:
  • 1.Require attribution?
  • 2.Allow commercial uses of your work?
  • 3.Allow modifications of your work?
  • 4.Or choose the following:
  • 5.Public Domain
  • 6.Sampling
  • 7.Founders’ Copyright
  • 8.CC-GNU GPL [Brazil]
  • 9.CC-GNU LGPL [Brazil]

Comments

As we can see, Creative Commons offers many different licenses to choose from. Those who intend to use a CC-tagged work should truly learn which exact license is under the tag. CC developers put freedom of choice for a copyright holder above all. We just have to realize and remember what this freedom means: it is the freedom to invent and enforce or relinquish all kinds of restrictions. Thus a CC license may barely differ from copyright on one end of a license spectrum and offer ultimate, public–domainlike freedom of use on another.
The following are advantages of the licenses:
  • Some freedom of use, depending on specific license. It looks like the only common feature of all exclusively CC licenses is free noncommercial use of a work of art, but this is never directly stated, so it is in question.
  • It is not limited to specific cultural area.
  • It looks like (but is never expressed directly) that CC licenses themselves are CC licensed thus, presumably, can be used to build other licenses upon them. However, it is not said what kind of CC license is applied to the CC license texts.
The following are limitations of the licenses:
  • They can but do not necessarily require attribution to an author.
  • They can but do not necessarily require attribution to a publisher.
  • They can but do not necessarily allow creative use of a work, such as modifying, building upon, sampling, performing, etc.
  • They are based on a copyright law only.
  • They do not prevent the sale of rights.

Public Domain

Works in the public domain undergo a treatment as if there is a total Self-tuning out there. No entity using a work in the public domain owes nothing to anyone in terms of money and attribution. That is, legally, anyone can rewrite the Bible word by word nowadays and announce it his own creation. The concept of public domain is as twisted as copyright is. It is just another side of the same coin called misconception of culture.

Authoright

Location: www.culturedialogue.org/drupal/en/authoright

Excerpts

The quintessential law of the nature of culture is “Ultimate Freedom.
Essentially, a work of art is a message to everyone. This is its very nature and driving force.
Culture is the only reality where humanity develops.
Authoright License may be based on and enforced within, but not limited to the existing copyright law. Any other law or contract, whichever singularly or in conjunction with is found suitable, may be used by the author(s) to support Authoright.
Authoright License covers the use of any and all cultural phenomena.
Any cultural phenomenon may be freely used by any entity for any known or currently unknown purpose, creative, commercial or non-commercial, without limitations, permissions, control of any kind from any individual, organization, government or international agency, and so forth.
Any and all public uses of a cultural phenomenon require attribution, when applicable, to all of the following:
  • Original author (s)
  • Source
  • Original source
  • Sponsors

Comments

The following are advantages of the license:
  • Ultimate freedom of use of a cultural phenomena―creative in any way, public, commercial, any other unlisted or not yet invented.
  • Mandatory attribution to an author, or authors, if used publicly and/or commercially.
  • Mandatory attribution to a source and original source, when possible, if used publicly and/or commercially.
  • Mandatory attribution to sponsor(s).
The following are limitations of the license:
  • The license was designed so that it does not bear any limitations on normal functioning of cultural phenomena.

Culture Vs. Copyright - Three Models

Used Under... 


Anatoly Volynets: Contents
Sasha Willins: Graphic Design & Editing
Ilya Volynets-Evenbach: Technical Support & Structure

Permission is hereby granted to anyone to use, copy, redistribute, or create derivative works from all the materials on the site and the site design and its elements for any purpose, as long as proper attribution in reasonable form is given to respective authors, clearly stated that all the materials are used under Authoright license, and functional link to this site and respective material on it provided.

The full text of Authoright License located at Dialogue of Cultures






Three Models

I recalled a remark from the discussion on the anti-DMCA list (I found the post―it was made on June 5, 2003):
“Take copyright away and guess what? Somebody is going to undercut YOU in price because they can make cheap copies, and thus, YOU won’t make any money at all!” “YOU” refers here to an author who spent a number of years writing a novel.
What is the answer to the above assertion? I want to start my deliberations on the subject from yet another quote:
“If art teaches anything (to the artist, in the first place), it is the privateness of the human condition. Being the most ancient as well as the most literal form of private enterprise, it fosters in a man, knowingly or unwittingly, a sense of his uniqueness, of individuality, of separateness―thus turning him from a social animal into an autonomous “I”. (Joseph Brodsky, Nobel Lecture, 1987).
Joseph Brodsky’s ideas about art give us directions for further analysis. If a work of an artist is some kind of private enterprise, it is one of different nature than a regular business. Its “business” is to foster a sense of uniqueness in humans. When we regard art as art, we MUST take into account its nature. We MUST remember and take it seriously that art is not determined or driven by rewards or punishments, profits and losses. On the other hand, we know that regular business is possible and does go on around arts. That tells us we probably can put art on the same scale as business. But we should do it seriously, shouldn’t we? Talking about business we must take into account and apply to the subject laws, which are natural for business. Thus we have to determine what in an artwork, where and when may be traded and what, where and when must be shared, must go freely.
If we uphold this approach, if we try to follow the very nature of our subject, then there is a hope we will get most in terms of creativity and business at the same time. If we uphold this approach there is a hope to resolve and forget all of the problems caused by mixing subjects of different nature by and within the monster called “exclusive rights.”
“Somebody is going to undercut price”―what is so tragic about this when we talk business? It is a simple question. What is the honest answer to it? The normal answer is OK. There are few more as simple questions, which also require honest answers. Say, what about all other business areas? If I am going to do publishing myself, I have to be ready to compete with others and fight for my market share. Is this yes or no? If I am not going to do business myself and sell my work to a publisher, how does copyright help me? Does it or does it not, really? I hinted probably not once―I am not satisfied with the commonly accepted speculations about exclusive rights, no matter for how long those have circulated around.

Three Options to Govern Culture

In order to find out what is going on and what could be going on in Reality, I framed three options to analyze: no regulation at all, current type of regulation and possible ideal, and corresponding to the nature of the subject regulation of cultural affairs. These are:

Self-tuning

This means there is neither copyright nor any other specific regulations for cultural affairs working at all. There was a historical precedent pretty close to these conditions. In Jacobinian France, for a short period of time, which ended in 1793, all royal publishing privileges were abolished. Aside from that particular case, individual printing privileges were granted by the royalty in the pre-copyright era.

Copyright

A universal publishing monopoly. It is the ownership, similar to the private property, which is imposed onto cultural phenomena. This regime was introduced despite public outcry in Great Britain in 1710.

Authoright

In short, it is a universal right to attribution for individual authors. This regime has never existed thus far, although its partial and twisted implementations have occurred.

Method of the Research

As a method of the research, I analyze the situation of a writer, who is looking for a publisher. We will put the writer in different possible scenarios in his quest up to its resolution. It is my understanding that neither genre or kind of art nor historical time nor any other technicalities play major role in the reality we are going to scrutinize. Said scenarios, in their essential features, can be equally applied to any creator at any time in any area of human activity. Regarding fundamental points, it would be all the same for a music composer, or painter, or inventor, or any other creator in the eighteenth or twenty-first or thirtieth century. Obviously, all mentioned and countless other cases differ in detail, but details and nuances are not our first priority here. I will put my writer in the eighteenth century in order to simplify scenarios.

Self-tuning

Once again, I want to find out what is going to happen if cultural affairs are not regulated by a specific law.

Scenarios

An author has to shop for a publisher. If he never found one this is end of story.
Suppose he did find a publisher. He can conduct preliminary negotiations before letting his work go.
Suppose he got some result. For instance, in case the work is accepted, the author will be paid such and such. If the sum is considerable, we get a happy ending in the very beginning.
If the publisher wants exclusive rights, he may pay more to buy the author’s loyalty. Naturally, exclusive rights are effective until the work is published only because with no regulation in the field, anyone can use it after publishing.
If the publisher does not want exclusive rights, the author may bring the manuscript to another one right away and get paid by both. He has to have more than one copy in this case.
What happens after the publishing? This depends on the acceptance of the work by the public. Generally, the author gets more and more exposure as long as other publishers use his work. And they do it while it brings any money. Simultaneously, they all promote the author even if they don’t mean to.
Does second-hand publishing bring any incentive to the author? It can do so. For example, if a publisher wants to be branded, he may pay the author so that the publisher will be the author’s announced sponsor. Will any publisher do this? Some will; for this marketing idea isn’t worse than any other one.
If the author is well-accepted, his next work will be sold for a greater price. Publishers will compete for the ability to get the next one first hand. Being the first in this environment means being a brand.
What if the very first publisher robs the author, say, does not give any written promise, take the work, and publish it under some other name? This does change situation but not much. If the first stolen work brings considerable money, the second one will not be stolen but bought because other publishers will intervene in order to get it. Thanks to Self-tuning, that is to say, thanks to the no-exclusive-rights situation, it will become known sooner or later who is the real author with all corresponding consequences for the author, the publisher-thief, and the entire artist and publishing communities.
As soon as this variant brings bad reputation to the thief, he must take it into account. Also, the author may turn to a court and sue the publisher under civil law. This will be a matter of proof and money but still is possible. For example, the author could have another copy of the work and a witness he had it before bringing the work to a publisher. Such measure may effectively secure the work from stealing.
Now suppose the first work does not bring money, which means the author hasn’t got any popularity. In this case, the entire story starts over with his next work.

Summary

Making the first summary, let us stress that as long as this model creates a highly competitive situation, publishers have to fight to develop brand names. A publisher may achieve this by: (a) trying to always be the first; (b) trying to offer the best in terms of quality-for-price to the public; (c) trying to sponsor authors instead of making appearances as a lover of free rides. This should bring another layer of incentives to authors.
It is noteworthy that as far as all works are accessible for all publishers, success of an author depends on his talent only. On the other hand, if an author lacks talent, it is not for us to worry about his failures.
Actually, I used to think that the Self-tuning model was much worse than it appears now. It looks like it could bring up fairly self-tuned market that is very challenging for all parties. It is unlikely that any work of art may disappear unnoticed in this environment. The overwhelming spectrum of quality and prices must grow.

A Historical Excursus

The Self-tuning model is based entirely on contractual law, so eventually, publishers, after getting considerable economical power, may (and history says they do) plot to contract authors and conduct publishing in a copyrightlike manner. That is, they would try to secure their portfolios and thus revenues for some time. The next step will definitely be an attempt to make it universal and to have a government backing this so to strip authors’ abilities to dictate conditions. This is what had happened in Great Britain and concluded in the Statute of Anne in 1710.
Before that, for about two hundred years, the Crown resisted the demands of licensed scribes to limit the freedom of printing and restrict the spread of the printing presses. In 1710, the Crown was eager to get rid of anonymous pamphlet writers, so the government’s desire for effective censorship met with big publishers’ desire for easier money, and that mutual interest brought about the Statute of Anne. It is even more interesting that actually the same law (in its basic features: fourteen plus fourteen years of limited printing monopoly) was later adopted in the U.S. in order to provide “the progress of science and useful arts.”
The question is, how could the same mechanism work in such contradictory directions―to back monopolies for big guys and, at the same time, to provide incentives for the smallest ones, those “starving artists”?
Through centuries and countries, publishing monopolies have definitely proved to be practical for governments and big publishers. The pretext being upheld that it is to protect authors, promote creativity, develop culture, education, etc. Has this ever been proved to work in reality? There have been a lot of speculation but not any proof.

Publishing Monopoly a.k.a. Copyright

What I am going to do now is copy the above text and make changes to it when necessary to stress the differences between two models. I shall number the changes in parentheses.

Scenarios

Well, an author has to shop for a publisher. He may never find one and thus end of the story. There is no difference with the Self-tuning in this regard.
Suppose he did find a publisher. He may conduct preliminary negotiations before letting his work go. There are no differences so far.
Suppose he got some result like in case the work is accepted, then the author will be paid such and such. Happy ending in the very beginning. No differences as of yet.
If the publisher wants exclusive rights or monopoly for the printing within the legal term, here is the first difference with the Self-tuning model (1). He may pay more.
If the publisher does not want exclusive rights or the author does not want to relinquish all of his rights, he can bring the work to another publisher and get paid by both.
What happens after publishing? This depends on acceptance of the work by public. Author gets exposure depending on his (one!) publisher’s marketing efforts and abilities (2). This is the second difference with the Self-tuning model. The next work may be sold for a greater price if the first one got famous. In the latter case, publishers will compete for the ability to get the next one first. On the other hand, the publisher, having exclusive rights is interested to promote the work, no matter how talented it is (3).
There is another circumstance brought in by legally enforced printing monopoly―having secured portfolio for some prolonged time (initially for fourteen plus fourteen years, about one hundred years today), a publisher may not be interested in buying another book (4). Or he may buy it not for publishing but to prevent competitors from doing this (5) In any case, this is exactly what publishers fought for: to make their life easier at the expense of public and this is how the printing monopoly turns around and strips authors of possible income instead of providing it. The latter phenomenon fires back on an author in yet another aspect. The author having been condemned to sell a work to a single publisher has to take this in consideration and thus make adjustments to the work. This trend plainly undermines creativity (6). The last feature of the copyright-driven environment is of specific interest because it directly contradicts proclaimed goal of exclusive rights.
What if the very first publisher robs the author; does not give any written promise; takes the work and publishes it under some other name? This does change situation because having exclusive rights the publisher has much more ability to provide that no one ever learns who the real author is (7).
However this variant can bring bad reputation to the publisher-thief, so he must take it into account. The author may turn to a court and sue the publisher under the copyright law (8). But again, if stealing is not proven, the author lost his work forever while within the Self-tuning, he may just compete with the publisher-thief. Anyway, a law suit is always a matter of proof and money, and in this respect, there is no difference between models.
Another new feature is the following. Remember, by the very nature of art we, the audience, develop personal relations with a work of art. We noted earlier these relations are, in fact, very similar in nature to those with real people. The differences are only in the consequences of the relations. When it comes to the access to some wanted work of art, generally speaking, there is no substitute available. If you want to read the Bible, then you want to read the Bible; if you want The Lord of the Rings, then you want The Lord of the Rings. It is a personal matter. Yes, in practice, if you cannot get the artistic work that you want, you may find some “substitute,” but this would hurt like losing and finding a substitute for a friend. That means a publishing monopoly on a single book is, in fact, a monopoly that is as effective as if this book were the only one on the market. Thus, copyright allows the raising of the prices to the maximum level possible (9). Like with a casual monopoly, this feature stays in the way for public access to distributed works in terms of price and thus badly affects markets.
A quite unexpected development within the copyright-driven environment is promotion of actual plagiarism (10). Plagiarism cannot survive within the Self-tuning because the public is very sensitive to it, and no publisher would like to risk his brand while all original works are at his disposal. This is not the case within the copyright-driven environment. It is very tempting here to get and sell something similar to a well-selling work. In order to do so, one only needs to provide some measured formal differences with the example to follow. What is it if not plagiarism? Interestingly enough, another publisher would prefer to buy described plagiarism instead of something really new with an uncertain projection for sales. Hence, we have one more blow to creativity caused by publishing monopoly a.k.a. copyright.
Yet another lovely consequence of copyrights is that publishers try to influence audiences in order to conserve a current level of perception of arts (11). Having secured a portfolio for years, a publisher wants to make sure all of it would be salable as long as the monopoly lasts. Publishers just need to restrain the development of public tastes. Thus, they must try to retard the promotion of new ideas, new aesthetic approaches to arts, new kinds of arts, new genres, and so forth. This trend must bear some inertia in it―while investing money in the retardation and conservation of public development, publishers are driven to get new works to fit the picture thus contributing again for the third time in the suppression of creativity.
Now let’s get back to the author. Suppose the first work does not bring money, which means the author hasn’t got any popularity. The entire story starts over with the next work. However, this would be harder for the author to start over in the environment poisoned by publishing monopolies―publishers having backed by their portfolios would not want to risk for the author, which had not succeeded already. It wouldn’t matter if he was misunderstood genius or one which just failed to convince a powerful publisher to market his work.

Summary

Actually, I used to think that the copyright model was not as bad as it appears now. It looks like it completely disrupts a Self-tuning market; applies pressure on a creator’s mind to give up to tastes of the now-well-defended publishers; at least three times compromises creativity; and promotes actual plagiarism. Its important feature is that any work of art may disappear unnoticed, regardless of how talented it is. High prices must overwhelm the book/art market and undermine its development.
The last trend brings in tensions in the industry and spurs up attempts to extend the initial monopoly even further in order to restore vanishing profits. Actually, such attempts come forward even before markets shrink or regardless. As long as the idea of monopoly is considered to be the right one, holders should fight to always extend it.
The copyright trick amazes me more and more. It badly affects culture and civilization in many ways while helping big publishers to make business easier. What is funny is that “easier” does not mean more profitable here but rather opposite!

Authoright

I want to explain (actually, to repeat) some of the guidelines to this really simple model. We saw the Self-tuning model provides a pretty good framework for culture and culture-related market development. Still, there is some uncertainty in terms of the author’s well-being because there is some room for dishonesty to exploit―an attribution is not required here (it is the exact situation of works in the public domain). Thus, it seems (just seems!) to make sense to provide backing by society for culture so that cultural phenomena would be treated according to the “law of nature” of culture. I assume the following:
  • The main law of nature causing cultural development is ultimate freedom.
  • There cannot be an owner to a cultural phenomenon.
  • The only thing which can be owned is a material thing with a cultural phenomenon inscribed in it.
  • Cultural equivalent of physical stealing is lying.
  • Cultural phenomena is produced in an individual mind or in free communication of individuals.
  • Culture, while being governed according to its nature, will pay back in infinitely greater degree to an author, publisher, and the entire society than under the current laws.
Hence, the main features determining the Authoright approach are:
  • No entity of any kind may control or regulate in any way copying, sharing, distribution, all and any public use of an idea, work of art or any other cultural phenomena. First and foremost, there must not be any restrictions in artistic acquirement of a work of art. In short, the creation of derivatives or any other reuse of a work.
  • Every author has an eternal and unalienable right for attribution.
  • An author may sell his works, not rights.
  • A publisher or any other entity may pay an author for the right to be named his/her sponsor. The amount is the matter of negotiations.
  • No company, organization, or a group entity of any kind and nature beyond the actual author(s) may be considered an author for any creative work.
  • The source (publication) of a work must be attributed to in every public use of the work.
  • Any sponsor of an author or a single work or a single publication deserves proper attribution.
The full text of the Authoright put in the Addendum.
What I am going to do now is to copy the copyright model text and make changes to it when it is necessary to reflect Authoright specifics. The differences with the Self-tuning model will also be noted. I shall number all the specific features of the model in parentheses.

Scenarios

Like within the other two models, an author has to shop for a publisher. He may never find one and thus end of the story.
However, we have to note now this kind of “end” is essentially less probable here (and within Self-tuning as well) than in the environment poisoned by publishing monopolies―as far as it is much more difficult to secure a monopolized portfolio for considerable time, it is vital for a publisher to be first in finding a new work or discovering a new author (1).
Suppose the writer did find a publisher. He may conduct preliminary negotiations before letting his work go.
Suppose he got some result. For instance, in the case the work is accepted, then the author will be paid such and such. Happy ending in the very beginning. However, it is noteworthy that this kind of end is more probable here than having publishing monopolies in place. An author and his new work are much more valuable assets now for many reasons (2). Firstly, because he is free to bring his work to as many publishers as he wants. Secondly, because only individual authors can claim authorship. Thirdly, because the best way for a publisher to develop a brand is to get the work firsthand.
If a publisher wants exclusive rights, (until the work is published) he may pay more. The same story happens within other models. Differences lie in time frames only, and this affects publishing only. We saw that copyrights bring nothing good in here.
If the publisher does not want exclusive rights until the moment of publishing, the author may bring it to another one and get paid by both. Again, this is not likely to happen under copyright just because it is against copyright-driven “common sense.”
What happens after publishing? This depends on the acceptance of the work by the public. Anyway, the author gets more and more exposure as far as other publishers may use his work. And they do it while the work brings any money. Thus, the entire competing publishing community promotes the author (3). If a second-hand publisher wants to be branded, he may pay the author in order to be the author’s announced sponsor (4). These two features have a more powerful effect within Authoright compared with Self-tuning because attribution is mandatory here. More importantly is that an author is really free to create now, has no necessity to adjust to anyone’s taste but to his imaginary interlocutors only. Having his name protected by law and the work promoted by the entire publisher community, the author knows that he will be judged by the public for his work and thus talent only (5).
The next work will be sold at a greater price if the first one got famous. In the latter case, publishers will compete for the ability to get the next one first hand. It is important to underline that having no possibility to secure some prolonged portfolio, publishers must be really fast to grab any new work to use. This is important in terms of incentives for authors (6).
Now what if the very first publisher robs the author, will not give any written promise, take the work and publish it under some other name? This changes not much. If the first stolen work brings considerable money, the second one will not be stolen but bought because other publishers will intervene in order to get it.
This variant, on the other hand, brings a bad reputation to the Publisher―thief, so he must take it into account. Now the author may turn to a court and sue the publisher under Authoright law (7). However, this difference between Authoright and copyright is not essential. We just have to remember that under Authoright, an author can sue for the stealing of the name only. The important point is that even if stealing happened but is not proved, the author may just compete with the publisher-thief (8), which is one more advantage to compare with copyright.
Now remember, we were discussing, not once, that by the very nature of art we, the audience, develop personal relations with a work of art. We know these, in fact, are the same as those with real people. We remember the difference is only in consequences of the relations. We also remember that when it comes to the access to some wanted work of art, there is no substitution available by definition. We already concluded that because of that, a printing monopoly on one book allows the right’s holder to raise the price as if this book was the only one on the market. This is absolutely impossible within the Authoright environment, where a work of art is accessible for everyone to copy and publish since the very moment it is published (9).
We also remember another quite unexpected development within the copyright model, which is the promotion of actual plagiarism wrapped in hypocrisy. Having copyright, it is very tempting to promote something similar to a well-selling work with some formal differences. This absolutely makes no sense within the Self-tuning and Authoright models because the public is very sensitive to plagiarism, and no publisher would risk his reputation while all original works are at his disposal. Thus, while copyright promotes plagiarism and compromises creativity, Authoright promotes creativity and makes plagiarism impossible. It spurs the natural drive to get original works in everyone (10).
Authoright makes baseless another absolutely unacceptable consequence of copyrights―publishers’ motivation to restrain the development of audiences (11). As far as they cannot secure any portfolio for a period of time greater than the one necessary to prepare a work for publishing, a publisher has no interest in stagnating of public taste. On the contrary, because in this environment everybody is chasing after the new, it is necessary to have a public capable of understanding the new. It would be in the publishers’ best interest to push the public to learn, to develop understanding of aesthetic principles and so forth.
Now suppose the first work does not bring any money, which means the author hasn’t got any popularity. The entire story starts over with the next work then. Another start is likely to be easier in the Authoright environment, where the publishers and the public are in an ongoing hunt for new works and authors (2).
After all, the only thing which really matters within Authoright is an author’s talent.

Similarities and Differences Between Three Models: Summary

In general, the Authoright model comprises the advantages of both the Self-tuning and the copyright models while bearing none of their disadvantages:
1. Under the Authoright, like under the Self-tuning model, an author is more likely to find his first publisher if he is unique. And vice versa, (unlike under the copyright) an author is less likely to find the first publisher if he repeats after someone else.
2. Within Authoright, like within Self-tuning, an author is a more valuable asset in general terms to compare with copyright and thus always has a chance to get paid better from the very beginning.
3. Unlike any other environment it is impossible, under Authoright, for any entities but the individual authors of the work to claim authorship. This specific feature gives the author another push into the very center of all culture-related businesses.
4. Like within the Self-tuning model, authorighted work gets promoted by the entire competing publishing community while under copyright, the promotion of a work is restricted to the good will and real abilities of one or somewhat limited number of publishers and other public users of the work. Moreover, under Authoright, the promotion of a work automatically means promotion of its author and entirely depends on his talent.
5. Similarly to the Self-tuning environment, an author may sell his authorighted work either literally fixed in some media or in the form of sponsorship as many times as he gets. However, within the environment poisoned by publishing monopolies, he is actually condemned to one time or otherwise limited sale. Regarding sponsorship, any entity may call itself an author’s sponsor if it provides agreed-upon incentives to the author. This can happen to an author in any environment but cannot be considerably useful within copyright for two reasons: firstly, because the quantity of business and other public usage of a work of art is extremely limited; secondly, because rights’ owner is usually in full control of the work use and may not be interested in promotion of any sponsor. It may be useful under Self-tuning but in a lesser degree than under Authoright because of differences in the attribution requirements.
6. On the other hand, even within the Self-tuning, an author’s name gets protected at least two times. Firstly, unwritten, academiclike attribution standards develop. Secondly, it is in the best publisher interest to attribute a work to its known author. A stealing may happen, as we discussed it, at the very first public appearance of an author. Still, there are certain protection abilities out there. Needless to say, the same works under the Authoright.
7. Under the Authoright, similar to the Self-tuning environment, the more talented an author is and thus the more unique, the more he gets promoted. However, within the environment poisoned by publishing monopolies, the author is pushed to follow well-selling examples.
8. Under the Authoright, like under the Self-tuning, an author is free and encouraged to create truly new work in any and all meanings of the word. On the other hand, the author meets no restrictions to learn from others. To the contrary, under the copyright regime, an author must adjust himself to the tastes of a limited number of publishers in an increasingly greater degree and, on the other hand, is limited to learn and build upon the works of others. Shortly, the author is pushed into naivety and plagiarism.
9. Similarly to copyright, an author can protect his name under the Authoright using the special law of the mandatory attribution while under Self-tuning, he has to use nonspecific laws. This feature does not amount to a huge advantage but just makes it easier to protect the author’s name. As I said earlier, it is likely that unwritten rules will emerge and work like they do in academic environment, and this will actually nullify importance of this feature.
10. Under the Authoright, similar to the Self-tuning, if a publisher steals an author’s name, the author can still compete with the thief. On the contrary, under copyright, a work, if stolen and is not recovered in the court, is lost forever.
11. Like within the Self-tuning environment, under the Authoright markets are flooded with works of art with a spectrum of content, quality, and prices. Under copyright, market development is limited at least two times: firstly, by direct regulation by publishers and secondly, by monopolistic prices.
12. Within the Self-tuning and the Authoright environments, a work gets promoted by all of the publishers willing to do it. It gets exposed regardless of the economic and other abilities of specific publishers. Within the copyright environment, exposure of a or work really depends on one publisher who bought it. Hence, the author is naturally forced to look for a big publisher, which means that copyright enforces regular monopolies also, not only culturally based ones. This trend once again fires backwards on the author to bow to the taste of that big publisher in order to be published, promoted, sold, and paid. Thus, an author’s dilemma in the copyright-driven environment really is: “more money means less creativity.”
13. Similarly to the Self-tuning, an author is discouraged to conduct plagiarism under the Authoright while he is encouraged to do so under copyright. Within no-publishing-monopolies environment, where all works are accessible for all publishers, the publishers are naturally driven to go after the best and have to get it by all possible means. Oppositely, under copyright, a publisher secures his portfolio for some prolonged time. This portfolio is the real essence of the entire copyright business. Here, a big publisher may invest big money into the promotion of a work. A small one is tempted to follow; he will try to buy something similar to secure his profits. There is no urgent need to find the best for anybody because the only urgent need is to find or order something somewhat different from a bestseller and to monopolize it. That is, as I said it not once, plagiarism is encouraged. It reveals itself in false diversity when the market is flooded by many talentless works following some greatly promoted ones as examples. We have to emphasize this: greatly promoted works, not the best ones, stage examples to follow.
14. This also addresses the current situation regarding derivatives. While a real creator’s freedom to build upon earlier works is suppressed under copyright, a plagiarist can very easily measure the level of formal differences and follow all necessary formalities with permissions in order to be published. On the contrary, building upon work of others while being a natural way of culture development is flourishing under the Authoright and Self-tuning as well.
15. Under the Self-tuning and the Authoright, publishers are interested in public development while under copyright publishers are interested in public retardation.

Conclusion

An amazing outcome of all the analysis performed here can be summarized as that every positive speculation about copyrights (and I understand all the same applies to patents and other exclusive rights) look somewhat rational on the surface and work in the exactly opposite direction in reality.
The Authoright-driven environment, in very general terms, creates highly competitive, aggressively growing markets with the common intention towards the novelty, providing market/competition-driven incentives to authors and publishers. The most general point here is that cultural affairs are governed according the very nature of culture. Because of that culture, intensively develops.