Archive for the 'Copyright' Category

Date: September 21st, 2008, Filed under Copyright

Chicago, Il

By A.B. Dada

—

Thanks for your emails, both kind and condemning, on my recent post regarding the CFCC Labs and the Sean P. Salter dilemma.  Looking back, I realize I didn’t really put out what my dilemma was in the entire situation: what exactly should I do?

As a Christian, the proper first step to reconciliation is to confront an individual you feel is doing wrong.  I did that, through a private message to Mr. Salter.  His response was ignorant of our differences.  So I took it to the community we had, and as I said in my previous post, the back-patters joined together to condemn my views on copyright and the design world future.  Chuckle all you want, brothers, but I’m certain of the truth that those who hold to copyright will be those left in the dust.

That left me with little left to do, so when Mr. Salter posted a message telling people it was him or me at the CFCC Labs, I unjoined that group.  His public message was deleted by moderators, but not until I had read it (thank you RSS).  Boy was it full of Salter’s usually incohesive, unlettered and uneducated views of why I’m wrong.

I had left him alone after that, until his nice little puke on the ChristianMusicSucks.com podcast.  For those who don’t know, that particular site is also run by the back-patters.  It’s fun to watch public groups band together so you know who to avoid.  The best part of the ignorant is how they fail together.  It’s OK to me to watch others make mistakes that effect their futures, because I am aware that those who put all their eggs in one basket are making a mistake that humans should have long since learned from thousands of years ago: have options.

For those who care (and are still reading), here’s what I recommend doing: consider the two points of the two debaters on this topic, and only this topic.  Sean P. Salter says that copyright is important to get artists to design.  I say that is an ignorant view because artists have always designed, and copyright is a recent phenomenon.  Salter says that copyright is necessary to protect a past work; I say that there should be no protection of a past work because the distribution of it is the best form of marketing an artist can do.  If you want to make your art valuable, don’t do it digitally.  Make statues, or oil painting, or something that is very difficult to copy or mimic.  That has value.  That is property.  Digital works are just that: pretty, but fairly useless and non-unique designs that are bits of data that are easily copied, mimiced and distributed by others.

I’m slowly becoming aware of the world of graphic designers: not the professionals in the States, but the ones I’m emailing throughout the world.  From Africa to New Zealand to India to Bulgaria, I’ve contacted dozens of poor, uneducated, but amazing graphic designers.  Some of them don’t even have a workstation and have to use one in an Internet cafe.  Their work is amazing.  The tools to make amazing work is out there, and there is little uniqueness in the market.

If someone does have talent, it’s in one of three areas: the creating of ideas, the mock-up of that idea on paper, and the final design phase of putting it into the PC.  All of these are tasks that require some skill, maybe a rare skill.  The problem I have is not agreeing that designers should be paid for the work they are doing (the active work, that is, not old work).  My problem is that designers are popping out of the wood work, and some have an amazing talent.  It’s like music: it isn’t who can play an instrument the best, it is who has the best marketing.  As the world gets connected, designers in the States are going to be in trouble.  This is a fact.  If I was a designer, I’d be looking for a new industry to penetrate immediately.  It’s not going to be pretty.

The most basic problem the old-fashioned designers have is that they’re holding to the use of force to try to stop others from replicating their labors.  This is a ridiculous idea.  Telling someone else how they can move their hands on a mouse and how their minds can think is what copyright is.  Someone sees something they like, and they find a way to use their own time, tools and talents to duplicate it.  Copyright is mind control, body control, time control.  It’s a moronic idea placed in the Constitution by morons.  And even worse, the current day morons think they can control ideas and how others use their hands and tools through the force of law!

If you’re a great designer, keep designing.  Every day.  Put your work out there.  Work hard for your corporate clients, and volunteer your time for your faith organization.  Why a good Christian designer would want to work for a low paying church when they could go and get a corporate gig with an agreement that they’d spend 4-6 hours a week on pro bono work (through their job, maybe)?  It’s like those folks who sit on street corners trying to collect $15 an hour for a charity when they could go out and get a $15 an hour job and donate that money to the charity.  It makes no sense.

If you don’t want to get a corporate gig, then release your previous designs freely.  Promote your site as a bastion of excellent and useful free creations.  By promoting your old stuff, you will increase your chance of getting hired by someone for new work.  The more you create, hired or freely, the more you’ll have to market yourself with.

Anyone who tries to control digital data that can be easily copied is just going down with the ship.  Hollywood, the radio, and even the church are all aiming to force themselves into the dark ages by clinging to a fruitless man-made law that no longer matters.

Oh, and Sean…  you called me a socialist for saying that digital information has little value.  No, I’m a capitalist.  I believe in supply and demand and resist the idea that laws and regulations can fix a market.  Digital information has infinite supply and finite demand.  That means the price really is zero.  Your labor, on the other, has VERY finite supply.  So you should charge more for your future labor (even 5 minutes in the future) to offset any loss you may have because you will not be able to charge for your past labor for much longer.

Comments: 1