http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/29/comment.intellectualproperty
Brian Butterworth wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/29/comment.intellectualproperty
[Caveat - US-law biased]
Well, if we're linking...
Bruce Schneier links to a Law Review article about the a day in the life of a
normal person (no p2p filesharing etc, just you or me) in
On 29/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How long should copyright last
Well it should almost certianly be an absolute value, i.e. not Death +
N years just N years.
Measuring from the authors death is somewhat tricky if you can't find
out exactly when the author died. Even
On 29/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/29/comment.intellectualproperty
Brian, I agree with your later points - I would just like to mention
that Intellectual Property is a misleading phrase.
For more details on this see
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2006/12/06/gowers-review/
-
the length of copyright on sound recordings is 50 years from the date of
publication - it is this second date that the BPI, PPL, Musician's Union, et.
al. wanted to 'harmonise' upwards to life + 70.
On Thursday 29 November 2007 10:32:36 David Greaves wrote:
However, clear case law is given in the paper which shows that
since the email you have received is an unpublished work (sending private
correspondence doesn't count as publishing)
I thought there was a case in the UK where it was
On Thursday 29 November 2007 10:32:36 David Greaves wrote:
So, should we DRM email programs?
Oh, I missed that. People do use DRM in email. Ian Forrester does for
example - he restricts your right to redistribute any email he sends you by
appending:
This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first;
Michael Sparks wrote:
That's a rights expression, and is therefore a DRM. The restrictions however
aren't enforced by anything other than your clearly high good will and
estimation of Ian and your basic desire to not give him a headache :-)
That's not DRM, that's rights expression, as you
On 29/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Digital Rights Management includes rights expression as well as restrictions
enforcement.
That's the first I've heard. So either I am wrong or it's not common usage.
Either way I am guessing that the term should be avoided because it
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8 standalone=yes?
rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;
xmlns:cc=http://web.resource.org/cc/;
xmlns:dc=http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/;
rdf:Description rdf:about=this-email
dc:abstractI agree completely, semantic
Noah Slater wrote:
On 29/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cc:prohibits rdf:resource=http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse/
I would hasten to point out that I do not approve of non-commercial clauses.
Avoid this licence and choose one that doesn't restrict freedom
On 30/11/2007, Matt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, BY-SA would be best. It protects the rights, much like the GPL.
I stand corrected, again. Thanks Matt.
--
Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/
Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the
12 matches
Mail list logo
