On Friday 23 June 2006 23:30, you wrote: > On 6/23/06, Hamish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah... Aren't Picasso's out of copyright? I though he'd been dead for long > > enough that copyright had expired on his works... > > True, but that's a nit-pick. What if you could sell artwork for > thousands of dollars, were it not for some jackass who broke into your > house, borrowed your painting, scanned it, posted it on the internet, > and returned your original? >
Yeah, sorry it was a nit pick... But I still don't like the analogy... WIth Art originals are almost always (OK, I'd go for always) prized more than reproductions (Copies). With chips that can be true... Except the law seems to be a bit fuzzy there... I've never understood how the US Govt could have a decree against IBM when they had a monopoly that MADE them allow MVS etc to run on Hitachi/Amdahl et al, and MADE them make hardware compatible etc, yet can allow lawsuits nowadays because people are trying to make things compatible because somehow you're breaking copyright to try & work WITH someone elses products... > Anyhow, we should probably limit this discussion. I think we're all > in agreement that DRM is evil, fair-use is important, and the RIAA > doesn't give a damn about the artists that it's ostensibly suing > people on behalf of. Yep. Apologies... DRM just makes everyone mad I guess... H
pgpEoNJpTSWWe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
