Try reading what I wrote. I defended nothing - I questioned the whole concept of copyright. <someone who knows what "a lot of us" are thinking> I think what I said was probably just a statement of fact as far as this list is concerned; I could be wrong. I'm aware it's not a mainstream view. <across the pond> I don't know what pond divides Norfolk from Cambridgeshire & Essex. Bit more thinking & investigating before talking perhaps Bob :) m.
--- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: bob catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill > To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" > <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 7:27 PM > Michael Szpakowski wrote: > > > I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that > it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. > > Fascinating stuff... I describe an ongoing fiasco, our two > friends across the pond go on defending it... It's > possible to see how something as awful as the Orphan Works > Bill could even be contemplated over there. > > It's invaluable to hear from someone who knows what > "a lot of us" are thinking... > > Bob > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Szpakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 6:45:34 PM > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill > > *Why defend the indefensible?* > > I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that > it's copyright tout court that's indefensible. > michael > > > > --- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: bob catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill > > To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed > creativity" <[email protected]> > > Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 5:10 PM > > Hi Rob, > > > > Why defend the indefensible? > > > > Rob Myers wrote: > > > > > Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line > with > > the rest of the world. > > > > Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean > anything > > unless the work is registered. What kind of right is > that? > > > > > http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html > > > > > The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still > pays > > damages, but that they do so fairly. > > > > That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if > the > > work isn't registered. ONLY in the States! > > > > > The registry system is optional > > > > The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation > allows > > infringers to use your work with impunity. > > > > > The registry system is optional and is designed > to > > build on services like DACS (I forget the US > equivalent) > > > > A registry system ONLY exists in the States. DACS, a > > designers and artists association in the UK, is likely > > horrified at the Orphan Works Bill. > > > > Actually, the American registry system is a form of > state > > intervention in the market place that isn't > tolerated > > anywhere else. > > > > Bob. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 3:02:50 PM > > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill > > > > bob catchpole wrote: > > > Rob Myers wrote: > > > > > > > Registration only affects damages where > > copyright is infringed. > > > > > > So if someone uses your work without permission > and > > you haven't > > > registered you're not entitled to damages. > ONLY in > > the States. > > > > It is possible to register afterwards and claim > damages on > > the basis of > > that but I believe this has issues. > > > > > Why not > > > come into line with the rest of the world? > > > > Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with > the > > rest of the world. > > > > > Just get rid of the need (and > > > expense, $30 a time) to register. > > > > You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing > the > > date of > > publication can be useful. > > > > > Currently many working photographers in America > are > > compelled to do the > > > same as Seth Resnick: "Every image that I > shoot > > is registered before it > > > ever leaves my office." To us outside the > States > > this seems ludicrous - > > > time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an > > automatic universal > > > right. And in the Land of the Free!... > > > > > > > The purpose behind the “visual > registries” > > provisions is to help > > > artists keep > > > > ownership information associated with their > > works... > > > > > > To help artists? Artists are automatically owners > of > > their work. Nowhere > > > else do they need to register the fact. > > > > Artists receive copyright on completion of the work in > the > > US the same > > as everywhere else, and this copyright allows them to > > prevent other > > people from copying their work (and thereby profiting > from > > it) the same > > as everywhere else. > > > > Orphan works *are* a genuine problem for society that > need > > tackling, > > even if the current bill is not perfect. The bill can > be > > improved, and > > Public Knowledge have suggestions for this. > > > > The bill is not pro-corporate. Currently only big > > corporations can > > afford the risk of publishing old work with unknown > > copyright status. > > Damages could wipe out an individual or a smaller > > organization. The > > Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays > damages, > > but that > > they do so fairly. > > > > The registry system is optional and is designed to > build on > > services > > like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) that enforce > > copyrights and fees > > under the current system. Most professional artists > and > > designers > > already belong to such a scheme. > > > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail. > > A Smarter Email > > > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html_______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Sent from Yahoo! Mail. > A Smarter Email > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html_______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
