It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly what
I want.
This is what it all boils down to whenever the let's abolish
copyright for the good of society. It's actually about let's
abolish copyright for my own personal benefit. You simply don't want
to have to pay
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Martin Belam
Sent: 08 October 2009 22:46
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
David
Sorry for prattling on for so long.
Hi Tom,
found this interesting, and you've reminded me to read through this
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/1345/03329 so for 'prattling'
it's decent;)
Alia
Tom Morris wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 22:32, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk
Dave,
So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined by
yourself?
Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or
bank statement or a tree counts. If your arguments hold tight then they
hold tight for all examples. Hard to have a discussion when
My suggestion is that you don't post images you don't want
re-distributed in a public place.
Sounds fun for all those artists with showreels
David Tomlinson wrote:
Martin Belam wrote:
I suspect you can trust your family, friends etc to respect your
wishes, and you can limit the
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On 9-Oct-2009, at 00:21, David Tomlinson wrote:
For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject
anymore.
It’s not obvious at all. People need to stop with the nervousness when
the words “children” and “photograph” appear in a sentence together;
it’s,
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
Freedom is another word for self determination.
Incarceration, the opposite of Freedom is no control.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
Richard Lockwood wrote:
It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly what
I want.
This is what it all boils down to whenever the let's abolish
copyright for the good of society. It's actually about let's
abolish copyright for my own personal benefit. You simply
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
...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Martin Belam
Sent: 08 October 2009 22:46
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Free
Alia Sheikh wrote:
Dave,
So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined by
yourself?
Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or
bank statement or a tree counts. If your arguments hold tight then they
hold tight for all examples. Hard to have a
/
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson
Sent: 09 October 2009 11:09
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On 9-Oct-2009, at 00:21, David
Sean DALY wrote:
So if I understand you, let's abolish copyright, and that way
Microsoft, Adobe et.al. can just chuck their bloated old code and
incorporate formerly free software into their binaries? And charge an
arm and a leg for it as well.
Read Hat, SUSE etc all manage without a state
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Richard Lockwood wrote:
It is my genuine position. Abolishing copyright would achieve exactly
what
I want.
This is what it all boils down to whenever the let's abolish
copyright for the good of society.
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
Steve Jolly wrote:
David Tomlinson wrote:
Yes, I am aware of this, but why five years, why not one year why not
three months, and if three months, why at all.
A year or less strikes me as too little because too many people would
just wait until it was free. 5-10 years seems like a more
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Alia Sheikh wrote:
Dave,
So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined by
yourself?
Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or bank
statement or a tree counts.
@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
All we have to do now
Is take these lies and make them true somehow All we have to
see Is that I don't belong to you And you don't belong to me
Freedom You've gotta give for what you take Freedom You've
gotta give for what you
and this old chestnut
http://www.creativecommons.org.au/node/126
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk on behalf of Robin Doran
Sent: Fri 10/9/2009 11:25 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Anyone remember this for earlier
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:27, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Read Hat, SUSE etc all manage without a state sponsored monopoly,
Microsoft can do so too.
No thanks. I prefer the GPL, which derives its power from copyright
law - the concept that creators decide how their work
Tom Morris wrote:
I agree with Tom's argument.
Vanity publishing does not require copyright. It is just noise, unless
someone likes it.
So, yeah, counter-factuals seem like a bad way to go in the debate
unless there is some nice way of finding a neutral, scientifically
respectable way of
Robin Doran wrote:
Anyone remember this for earlier in the year? Prime example of privacy
and personal respect being abused. A company in Prague used a family
picture off facebook for commercial purposes without consent,
attribution, etc.
And taking them to court, will give you the right for
Your arguments should hold true for anything involving the word Nazi too:)
Interesting the control you are trying to exercise over our freedom to
discuss this topic.
Alia
David Tomlinson wrote:
Alia Sheikh wrote:
Dave,
So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined
by
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Talk to anyone in legal at Red Hat or
Novell, or Canonical, they will tell you how much they rely on
state-sponsored monopoly schemes such as copyright, patents,
trademarks, and trade secrets.
I attended the third international GPLv3 draft conference
Well, Henry III tried to throw out the Magna Carta too, and look where
it got him.
That darned French influence I suppose - Eleanor of Provence and her
cronies at court, no doubt with the first reading of HADOPI.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Richard Lockwood wrote:
No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and
looking for a way out.
See Michael Smethurst's post, it is a topic in in itself and does not
solely rely only upon copyright.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,
Deirdre Harvey wrote:
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
Freedom is another word for self determination.
Incarceration, the opposite of Freedom is no control.
Isn't your argument that control is bad and that people must relinquish
control for
Richard Lockwood wrote:
None of that makes any sense whatsoever.
It made sense to me, several million people in the UK fileshare without
regard to copyright. But the proposed cure (Three strikes), which
bypasses the legal system is worse than the problem.
-
Sent via the
David,
Your mention of His Dark Lordship and the Magna Carter made me wonder,
perhaps you should declare yourself a 'Freeman On The Land' -
www.fmotl.com- and become exempt from copyright, council tax -
www.nocounciltax.com - and all other statutory laws.
Regards, Dave
On 9 Oct 2009, 11:21 AM,
: Fri 10/9/2009 11:25 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Anyone remember this for earlier in the year? Prime example of
privacy
and personal respect being abused. A company in Prague used a family
picture off facebook for commercial purposes without
No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and
looking for a way out.
See Michael Smethurst's post, it is a topic in in itself and does not solely
rely only upon copyright.
Now you're just randomly quoting bits of messages and dropping in
irrelevant soundbites. You
Alia Sheikh wrote:
Your arguments should hold true for anything involving the word Nazi too:)
Interesting the control you are trying to exercise over our freedom to
discuss this topic.
Alia
I am just trying to keep on topic and not disappear along a tangent.
I think I am been reasonable, but
Mo McRoberts wrote:
We covered this already. The effect of the GPL cannot be achieved
_without_ copyright.
Any ends can be achieved through primary legislation that can be
achieved through copyright as copyright is primary legislation.
We can create a GPL like environment without having to
12:12
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Deirdre Harvey wrote:
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
Freedom is another word for self determination.
Incarceration, the opposite of Freedom is no control
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Richard Lockwood wrote:
None of that makes any sense whatsoever.
It made sense to me, several million people in the UK fileshare without
regard to copyright. But the proposed cure (Three strikes), which
Sean DALY wrote:
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Talk to anyone in legal at Red Hat or
Novell, or Canonical, they will tell you how much they rely on
state-sponsored monopoly schemes such as copyright, patents,
trademarks, and trade secrets.
I attended the third international GPLv3 draft conference
@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Anyone remember this for earlier in the year? Prime example of privacy
and personal respect being abused. A company in Prague used a family
picture off facebook for commercial purposes without consent,
attribution, etc.
http
-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Nick Reynolds-FMT
Sent: 09 October 2009 12:24
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than benefits
and should be abolished.
I'd like to see some hard numbers/evidence
The problem with varying copyright terms by medium is that it gets confusing
for the average person, however I (and a majority of the PPUK) agree with
you about copyright being used for reasons other than purely financial. This
is one of the reasons for the debate about when the 5+5 copyright term
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than benefits
and should be abolished.
I'd like to see some hard numbers/evidence for this statement. How much
are the costs? In dollars and pounds? How much is the benefit? Not
statements of principle, but
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
Alex Mace wrote:
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
Richard Lockwood wrote:
No. That's just you realising you're just digging yourself deeper and
looking for a way out.
See Michael Smethurst's post, it is a topic in in itself and does not solely
rely only upon copyright.
Now you're just randomly quoting bits of messages and dropping in
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 13:09, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
I'd like to see some hard numbers/evidence for this statement. How much
are the costs? In dollars and pounds? How much is the benefit? Not
statements of principle, but numbers.
My opinion is that is you had hard
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson
Sent: 09 October 2009 12:12
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Deirdre Harvey wrote:
Nick Reynolds
Mo McRoberts wrote:
Permitting (and encouraging) filesharing is not the same as abolishing
copyright. Thankfully, it’s not incompatible with copyright, either.
Indeed, it’s been trialled as a catch-up/distribution mechanism by
PSBs outside of the UK over the past couple of years, with decent
David Tomlinson wrote:
Steve Jolly wrote:
A year or less strikes me as too little because too many people would
just wait until it was free. 5-10 years seems like a more realistic
minimum in that regard. Mind you, I think that copyright terms would
vary by medium, ideally.
It's free from
Deirdre Harvey wrote:
We don't call them all laws.
No and not all fish are sharks, but sharks are fish.
But the particular law of copyright, imposes more costs than
benefits and should be abolished.
That is your contention, it is not a fact.
Yes, and I am defending that contention.
review or abolish?
bit pointless abolishing flippers before inventing feet
David Tomlinson wrote:
I just think copyright is a bad law and we should review (abolish) it.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
Sean DALY wrote:
So if I understand you, let's abolish copyright, and that way
Microsoft, Adobe et.al. can just chuck their bloated old code and
incorporate formerly free software into their binaries? And charge an
arm and a leg for it as well.
No thanks. I prefer the GPL, which derives its
Steve Jolly wrote:
If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to benefit
from those revenue streams, because the people who make the CDs,
T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author.
Fans will buy T-Shirts, from the bands official site shop, or Gig;s for
which
Alia Sheikh wrote:
review or abolish?
I think there is a case for abolish, other may wish to review it first.
-
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:
Alia Sheikh wrote:
I am not alone:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=976733
It is not surprising that such broad criticism, from such a diverse
group of critics, has now emerged. Intellectual property products form
the core of today’s New Economy of high technology, communications,
and
Simon Thompson wrote:
A quote from the abstract of an accepted paper to a non-peer reviewed
journal edited by second year law students about US intellectual
property law does not prove the case the argument.
I think it is prima face evidence that I am not alone in expressing
doubts about
Mo McRoberts wrote:
Um. yes, but “use of filesharing technology” is completely unrelated
in anything but a technical sense to sanctioning individuals sharing
content themselves on filesharing networks.
The implication is that the BBC approved of the sharing of iplayer
content, of course it
With regard to Spain, I am not familiar with the current situation but
some decision are going the way of the torrent sites,
http://torrentfreak.com/spanish-judge-non-commercial-filesharing-is-legal/
The ruling was made yesterday (Thursday) by Judge Paz Aldecoa in a
penal court in Santander,
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 15:43, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
The implication is that the BBC approved of the sharing of iplayer content,
of course it was subject to DRM.
No, it really didn’t.
That’s adding two and two together and getting pi.
-
Sent via the
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
[mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson
Sent: 09 October 2009 15:38
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
Simon Thompson wrote:
A quote from
Mo McRoberts wrote:
No, it really didn’t.
P2P requires the sharing of the content, only between users to the
iPlayer, using the BBC approved software. I don't mean the BBC intended
to share it on public P2P networks or internationally.
Deirdre Harvey wrote:
You aren't expressing any doubts about Intellectual Property Law and
Copyright. Most of the rest of the contributors to the thread are
expressing doubts. YOu are alone in your dogmatic certainty, not your
doubt.
I think the evidence justifies the abolition of copyright.
Alia Sheikh wrote:
If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to
benefit from those revenue streams, because the people who make the
CDs, T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author.
Fans will buy T-Shirts, from the bands official site shop, or Gig;s
for which
[Swapped order of paragraphs to make more sense]
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 17:16, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
iPlayer uses an application called Kontiki that manages your programme
downloads. The problem is Kontiki is a P2P application that not only
downloads content, but
I'll just run this by everyone again
If you wish to talk about personal images use the example of adults,
a spouse for example. Or personal information. Involving children is
like using the word Nazi, it is designed to close down debate, because
of the moral panic surrounding the issue.
Yep,
Perhaps we are at cross purposes...
http://torrentfreak.com/bbc-gets-ready-for-bittorrent-distribution-090409/
Like many broadcasters today, the BBC is open to experimenting with
online video distribution, allowing viewers to watch shows online.
However, due to complex copyright issues people
Martin Belam wrote:
I'll just run this by everyone again
If you wish to talk about personal images use the example of adults,
a spouse for example. Or personal information. Involving children is
like using the word Nazi, it is designed to close down debate, because
of the moral panic
It's the old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
2009/10/9 David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk
Alia Sheikh wrote:
Dave,
So we can have this discussion in only a manner which is determined by
yourself?
Children count, pictures of dogs count, pictures of someone's gran or bank
Dear David,
You are getting less and less reasonable with each posting you make.
I assert that you are a dickhead of the highest order and are going
straight into my trash folder.
If you could off a bit quicker, that would be much appreciated.
Best regards etc,
Rich.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009
On 8-Oct-2009, at 19:35, David Tomlinson wrote:
How about this one: (In no particular order).
[In view of various things]
Why don't we just abolish copyright ?
Being pragmatic, I’d posit that taking such an extremist perspective
is unlikely to achieve what you want. Actually,
Fearghas McKay wrote:
David
On 8 Oct 2009, at 19:35, David Tomlinson wrote:
Why don't we just abolish copyright ?
No - because those of us who create content want to be able to say no to
other people just taking our work and making money from it, I want to
keep my images as all rights
Mo McRoberts wrote:
On 8-Oct-2009, at 19:35, David Tomlinson wrote:
How about this one: (In no particular order).
[In view of various things]
Why don't we just abolish copyright ?
Being pragmatic, I’d posit that taking such an extremist perspective is
unlikely to achieve what you want.
vijay chopra wrote:
I'm a paid up member of the Pirate Party
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ (UK) and even we don't take this line.
Current official policy appears to be heading towards 5 years + 5 more
if you register. There's some debate from when this period should start.
Yes, I am aware
I will have another go ...
David Tomlinson wrote:
Copyright was dreamed up by people I would humbly suggest were smarter
than most (if not all) of us—not to say they’re beyond criticism, but
that I would think long and hard about the ramifications of throwing
it all away for diving into
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,
David Tomlinson wrote:
Fearghas McKay wrote:
For the record, I was looking for debate on the issue of copyright.
I don't see how images of children are any more relevant than images of
countryside, or any other content. I suggest the people raising the
issue are the ones with the problem.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 22:32, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Yes, I am aware of this, but why five years, why not one year why not three
months, and if three months, why at all.
Well done. You've re-discovered the Sorites Paradox.
I suspect you can trust your family, friends etc to respect your wishes, and
you can limit the distribution through trust.
Images of children can be sourced for advertising without having to resort
to using private images.
So your basic answer is that in a world without copyright,
Martin Belam wrote:
I suspect you can trust your family, friends etc to respect your wishes, and
you can limit the distribution through trust.
Images of children can be sourced for advertising without having to resort to
using private images.
So your basic answer is that in a world
On 9-Oct-2009, at 00:21, David Tomlinson wrote:
For obvious reasons I do not wish to discuss children as a subject
anymore.
It’s not obvious at all. People need to stop with the nervousness when
the words “children” and “photograph” appear in a sentence together;
it’s, for want of a
So if I understand you, let's abolish copyright, and that way
Microsoft, Adobe et.al. can just chuck their bloated old code and
incorporate formerly free software into their binaries? And charge an
arm and a leg for it as well.
No thanks. I prefer the GPL, which derives its power from copyright
79 matches
Mail list logo
