On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:14:13PM +1000, Adrian Colomitchi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adam Bolte <abo...@systemsaviour.com>wrote:
> 
> > No it's not - or at least it certainly isn't always the case.
> >
> > http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/07/23/0115242/copyright-drama-reaches-3d-printing-world
> >
> > Reading through the discussion there, the general consensus seems to
> > be that the copyright of 3D designs do not extend to the use of
> > 3D-printed objects.
> >
> I wouldn't be so sure about it, Adam, it's not like the "crowd wisdom"
> can't be wrong (it's only 5 years or so since tens of millions on this
> planet was convinced that "the price of houses never go down").

True. At least if the masses disagree, stupid laws will be harder to
push through.


> To give you some examples for my reserved position:
> 1. the "sheet music" is still music and the *interpretation* of that music
> still be subject to the copyright laws, especially if played in
> public

Speaking of music... as far as the adaption of FDLed works is
concerned, I'm not sure the invariant sections apply. The FDL talks
about redistributing more than 100 Documents. I performance would
arguably not count as redistributing anything. If music on a CD, the
FDL wouldn't interfere since CDs could have a data track with text
files (or include an insert in the cover) to include the license.

Would have to re-read the entire thing in the context of the specific
adaptions we can come up with.

I also understand that a new version of the FDL is in the
works. Perhaps we can write to the FSF to ask them to clarify what
happens when FDL works are used in unintended ways, with a list of all
the examples we can come up with? Since many FDL documents are likely
licensed under "or any later version", this could solve a bunch of the
concerns that have been raised - even if we do currently have some
disagreement about it being a problem or not.


> 2. there exists things stranger than you think is this words. E.g. the
> Millau Viaduct was copyrighed *as design* by the architect (Lord Norman
> Foster) and still is. His lordship chose to grant *the management* of the
> intellectual property rights to the company that operates/maintains
> it<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=26524091>.
> Now, you either use a browser with the Flash Payer installed, navigate to
> http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php and, bottom of the page pick
> "Legale notice" to read it yourself, or you believe me when I'm saying that
> *this company is the sole legal entity that can grant the right for the use
> of the pictures of that bridge*.

Different jurisdictions surely have different copyright laws and
interpretations too, so I'm not entirely surprised. Oh look - it's on
Wikipedia under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb


Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/

Reply via email to