Re: [-empyre-] Re: copyright

[John Klima <klima@echonyc.com>]

hi brad, long time no read.

being an artist who's dealt with said institutions, i can't say that
i've been robbed blind. though i have not been paid a red cent for
showing at the whitney twice now, the whitney exhibitions have directly
led to engagements that i have been paid for, and in some cases fairly
well paid. 

as far as copyright, i'm very loose on the topic. i find the stack of
paperwork involved when i agree to show a work rather silly, i barely
bother to read it and sign without a care for the fine print. when i
upload a work to the net or when i sell a work, its there source code
and all. a cavalier and dangerous attitude? perhaps. but the
technological obsolescence alluded to in previous posts is, i think, the
ultimate copy protection. when in 5 or 10 years it no longer functions,
they will call me first. why wouldn't they? my code is complicated and
in some cases rather poorly organized. it would be a nightmare for
someone to approach it "cold." alot of old cobol programmers made a tidy
sum around y2k, just in time for their retirement.

as far as my "estate" i could not care less, i'll be dead and i do not
intend to have heirs, at least none that i know of, yuk yuk.

the issues of copyright that i *am* very concerned about are centered
around the necessity to have copyright at all.  some folks may be aware
of a bill in the US congress that requires all media devices, hard or
soft, to have a digital copy protection embedded in them. it will be
illegal to play "unprotected" content, it will be illegal to import
(download) unprotected content. this law will force me to stamp all my
work with some federal approval code, whether i want to or not. it will
cost me money to get this stamp. somehow this is for my own good, this
will somehow "protect" my rights of copy? no thanks, rip me off please.

best,
j



{ brad brace } wrote:
> 
> "New media" or not, artists "traditionally" have been
> robbed-blind by art institutions -- it may be more pertinent
> to first insure that artists/heirs are compensated for the
> increased monetary value of exhibited/collected works.
> Copyright laws would seem to have minimal monetary affect in
> this regard, and would likely curtail any contemporary
> distribution methods that run-around restrictive,
> hierarchical, regressive institutional structures still
> standing.
> 
> The 12hr-ISBN-JPEG Project                >>>> since 1994 <<<<
> 
> + + +         serial           ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/b/bbrace
> + + +      eccentric          ftp://ftp.idiom.com/users/bbrace
> + + +     continuous         hotline://artlyin.ftr.va.com.au
> + + +    hypermodern      ftp://ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace
> + + +        imagery   ftp://ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace
> 
> News:  alt.binaries.pictures.12hr   alt.binaries.pictures.misc
>                alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.misc    alt.12hr
> 
> 12hr email
> subscriptions => http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/buy-into.html
> 
>    Other  |  Mirror: http://www.eskimo.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html
> Projects  |  Reverse Solidus: http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/
> 
> { brad brace }   <<<<< bbrace@eskimo.com >>>>  ~finger for pgp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyrean/empyre