On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:37:20 +0100, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At the presentation at Mashup Camp, Lawrence Lessig said that it makes
> more sense as the law worked before, that you had to initiate a
> copyright otherwise it was public domain.  I agree with that, intent
> is actively chosen not given by default.

Good idea in theory, terrible in practice. Automatic protection is IMO a  
very good thing about copyrights. Imagine a world where you had to  
register to get protection: Every time you wrote a blog entry you would  
have to fill out a form, print your blog entry in 3 copies, fill out a  
check for $20 and mail everything to the Copyright Office.

Now *that* would stiffle creativity. It is easier to assume protection and  
have the author waive their rights. I also don't have to post a note on my  
furniture to retain my ownership rights - those are also automatic (the  
way I want them to be, even if I do live in a replica of the IKEA  

>  Right now any work that
> someone would want to reuse, they would have to contact all associated
> parties whether they intended it to be public domain or not.  It's an
> unnecessary burden on artistic development.

This is why you have Creative Commons. Don't tell me that writing "This  
work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution License" to be a  
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to