I wanted to keep this conversation going - been thinking about it for a while now.Looking for help thinking through this...So if I release work under creative commons share alike - people are free to use my work commercially only when they use the work in it's unaltered entirety, for example, a
On Wed, 24 May 2006 20:50:14 +0200, Michael Verdi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if I release work under creative commons share alike - people are
free to
use my work commercially only when they use the work in it's unaltered
entirety, for example, a compilation DVD or revlog on a site with
Michael Verdi wrote:
I wanted to keep this conversation going - been thinking about it for a
while now.
Looking for help thinking through this...
So if I release work under creative commons share alike - people are
free to
use my work commercially only when they use the work in it's
I've put up the piece from Eben Moglen, that I mentioned b4, at
http://punkcast.com/964/
He gets into the CC question about 25 mins into the QA,
but the whole thing (90 mins) is an enetertaining view.
I was pleased to discover on this one that the new VLC
seems to stream the ogg theora
On Mon, 15 May 2006 23:20:40 +0200, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the additional info Andreasnot knowing much about the
core of
the issue it makes it tough to know where to start and where to find good
information.
In my experience your best bet with this topic is still
On Tue, 16 May 2006 00:08:32 +0200, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a brief history of copyright on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
Nice find!
In the USA public works have always, thanks mostly to Jefferson,
been deemed to be the public
On 5/16/06, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 23:20:40 +0200, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the additional info Andreasnot knowing much about the
core of
the issue it makes it tough to know where to start and where to find good
Hello Devlon,I understand where you are coming from. But I think the argument being made is that the concept of Copyright law is (morally) wrong (regardless of whether it is legal).(I tried to elaborate on what Mark Hosler said in a long post I made in this thread.)
See yaOn 5/14/06, Devlon
On 5/15/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Devlon,I understand where you are coming from. But I think the argument being made is that the concept of Copyright law is (morally) wrong (regardless of whether it is legal).
I'll have to educate myself more on this topic to
Hello Devlon,On 5/15/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/15/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Devlon,I understand where you are coming from. But I think the argument being made is that the concept of Copyright law is (morally) wrong (regardless of whether it
On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:36:42 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read this for a brief history of Copyright:
http://slaw.ca/2006/04/25/publishers-and-copyright/
In what world was that brief? :o)
Anyway, it was hardly a history of copyright. A text that doesn't mention
Thanks for the additional info Andreasnot knowing much about the core of the issue it makes it tough to know where to start and where to find good information.That's a really fantastic thing about this list...the diversity of views, backgrounds, etcsome might say it's a bad thing. While
There is a brief history of copyright on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
In the USA public works have always, thanks mostly to Jefferson,
been deemed to be the public property, and the right to exploit
been a limited right granted by the people, while the
Hello,Please post the URL to it when it's done.See yaOn 5/13/06, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah I'm just doing up a piece by Eben Moglen wherehe mentions that he and Stallman believe that the NC provision
somewaht defeats the purpose.. It's a big encode I'll hopefullyhave it up on
Ok, maybe I am naive or just too new to all this, but I don't see a problem at all. If someone wants to protect their work, they use a license. We have optionsall rights reserved (not granular enough imho) and CC.
I feel the great thing about CC is the granularity. I can choose what rights
Check out this just-posted interview with Negativland's Mark Hosler:
http://tinyurl.com/fkfrd
He says You don't get total control when you put a creative work
out into the world. If you want total control, keep it in your bedroom.
I tend to agree. That's not to say you shouldn't get paid for
Hello Chuck,You may want to check this out also...Creative Commons -NC Licenses Consider Harmfulhttp://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655
See yaOn 5/13/06, Chuck Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check out this just-posted interview with Negativland's Mark Hosler:
Hello Chuck,I've talked about Copyright law with people before. (There's actually times when I talk about it quite alot.) And there's 2 ways people seem to act. They either largely agree with me. Or have very (negative) emotional reactions to what I say. (And start throwing insults, rather than
I don't agree with that guy at all... I mean, yeah, it makes sense
for something like wikipedia. But the fact that my videos are -NC is
the very thing that protected me when the corporate media began using
video that I had shot of a protest without my permission to project
their messaging.
I thought that info was pretty interesting - good stuff that has me thinking. So, let's say, Josh, your stuff was just BY-SA. Then those news stations, in order to use your video for free would have had to play it completely unaltered and in it's entirety. Also they would have to give you
yeah I'm just doing up a piece by Eben Moglen where
he mentions that he and Stallman believe that the NC provision
somewaht defeats the purpose.. It's a big encode I'll hopefully
have it up on Monday.
joly
Charles wrote:
Hello Chuck,
You may want to check this out also...
Creative Commons
21 matches
Mail list logo
