It all seems moot to me anyway. No one is required to enforce or
protect their copyright. If David or whoever wants to live in a
copyright free world, then go right ahead.
The greater problem is that copyright has been abused both by end
users and corporations. The Associated Press's attempts to claim
copyright over short excerpts from articles and the music industries
attempts to stop copyright-infringement, even when there is no
commercial gain for the infringer has, in my opinion, destroyed
copyright as it existed. If I am breaking the law and will be
prosecuted by rights-holders for the simple act of transferring "my"
media from one format to another, then something is very broken.
My personal view is that fair use should be extended to cover all
personal-use copying. You should really only be infringing copyright
if you make money based off someone else's work without permission or
recompense.
Or is that just too logical?
Alex
On 9 Oct 2009, at 11:13, Alia Sheikh wrote:
This seems to roughly translate to 'anything anyone makes that they
show to the world, can be taken and used by anyone in the world'.
Which feels like a setup for making creators very paranoid about
what they share with the world.
Doesnt seem like a fun place to live if it had that effect.
The whole point of copyright was to encourage people to make and
share things in the knowledge that the time and effort they spend
doing so will have the potential to be recompensed. If instead they
feel that putting their creative work in the public domain will
prevent recompense (remember everyone has to eat) then you
disincentivize them to share the work. In the case of industries
where the work must be shown to be sold (art, music previews
actually just about anything) then you disincentivize them to create
the thing in the first place.
If people want to share their work with all and sundry then
brilliant, and it's what we have creative commons for.
Copyright may be broken but chucking it out and not having something
put in its place for the original aim of encouraging creative works,
seems *lazy*.
Apologies if I'm misinterpreting anything you're saying.
Alia
David Tomlinson wrote:
Fearghas McKay wrote:
I mis-understood your intent.
If there is no copyright.
When you make the images public, you relinquish control.
The alternative is to keep the distribution limited, and use trust.
While you may have an emotional attachment or a feeling of
entitlement to the images, this is not a good basis for public
policy.
As to why someone should make money from them ?
If they can add value in some way ?
Why would people pay for the images, when they are in the public
domain ?
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,
please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html
. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,
please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html
. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
