On 24 Jun 2009, at 00:04, Peter Ansell wrote:
2009/6/24 Ian Davis <li...@iandavis.com>
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kide...@openlinksw.com
> wrote:
Using licensing to ensure the data providers URIs are always
preserved delivers low cost and implicit attribution. This is what I
believe CC-BY-SA delivers. There is nothing wrong with granular
attribution if compliance is low cost. Personally, I think we are on
the verge of an "Attribution Economy", and said economy will
encourage contributions from a plethora of high quality data
providers (esp. from the tradition media realm).
Regardless of any attribution economy, CC-BY-SA is basically
unenforceable for data so is not appropriate. You can't copyright
the diameter of the moon.
Ian
Interestingly, there is a large economy involved with patenting gene
sequences. Aren't they facts also? Why is patenting different to
copyright in this respect?
#random_aside_about_copyright_and_patent
Patents and Copyright differ in many respects.
Firstly, Copyright protection is given to creative works automatically
with no need to register. Simply by authoring something that shows a
basic level of creative expression I am granted Copyright protection
over that work. This is fairly uniform throughout countries that trade
with the US as the US has pushed very hard to unify the protection of
its own IP globally. Copyright only applies to the work I've done
though, characters, ideas and many other aspects are not covered.
Patents on the other hand require a successful patent application and
(though this is debatable in many cases) have a rigourous set of rules
about the novelty of the invention applied. In the case of gene
sequences it is not the sequence alone that is patented, but inventive
description of the possible treatments, cures or other benefits of
manipulating the gene (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/nov/15/genetics.theissuesexplained
). That is, Patent protection covers the idea where Copyright does not.
The other major difference is in how they can apply to what you do. If
you create something that is very similar to somebody else's work, but
can show that the original work was not referenced in any way, then
you have not infringed the copyright of that work (of course, that's
difficult to show). With a patent, however, the idea is protected
exclusively for the original inventor even if you came up with the
same idea completely independently.
rob
Cheers,
Peter
Rob Styles
tel: +44 (0)870 400 5000
fax: +44 (0)870 400 5001
mobile: +44 (0)7971 475 257
msn: mmmmm...@yahoo.com
irc: irc.freenode.net/mmmmmrob,isnick
web: http://www.talis.com/
blog: http://www.dynamicorange.com/blog/
blog: http://blogs.talis.com/panlibus/
blog: http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/
blog: http://blogs.talis.com/n2/
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com
shared innovationTM
Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of
Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and
any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the
intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please
return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an
unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court,
Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
