Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical

Mon, 15 May 2006 12:42:44 -0700

Hello Will,

On 5/15/06, wtrainbow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Charles,

I'm not sure what your point is.  You can certainly make the argument that copyright law is
morally wrong, I don't agree it is, but even if you and others believe it is so what.

Are you advocating violating copyright law as some sort of protest?

Sorry for the confusion.

First... No, I am not telling people to violate copyright law.

I'm advocating Copyleft.  I am suggesting that people use things like the Creative Commons Share-A-Like license(s).  And the GNU GPL license.

Copyleft in a way let's you opt-out of copyright law.  In a way it makes things as if there was no copyright law.
 

The fact is that there are plenty of laws that people would consider morally wrong yet we
decide to follow them because we live in a civil society. If you don't agree with them work
to change them.

I think current copyright law has a lot of problems but I'm not convinced that the concept
of copyright law is "morally" wrong...it's an interesting philosophical question but I don't
see it having much practical for videoblogging unless the laws radically change.

I guess I didn't make what I was trying to say very clear.

I was agruing that Copyright law was morally wrong.  And suggesting that those who agree with that use Copyleft licenses for their works.
 

See ya


See ya

Will

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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 tried to elaborate on what Mark Hosler said in a long post I made in this
> thread.)
>
>
> See ya
>
> On 5/14/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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 options....all rights reserved (not granular enough imho)
> > and CC.
> >
> > I feel the great thing about CC is the granularity.  I can choose what
> > rights I'd like to reserve.
> >
> > If someone doesn't agree with NC, or ND, then don't use it on their
> > work...simple, done.
> >
> > I can't think of a better way to phrase this, so please forgive the
> > bluntness of it, but it seems like those who oppose the noderivs portion of
> > CC feel that anything released online should be open to them to play with.
> > "If it's online, it's mine"?
> >
> > On 5/13/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >  Hello,
> > >
> > > Please post the URL to it when it's done.
> > >
> > >
> > > See ya
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/13/06, WWWhatsup < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 -NC Licenses Consider Harmful
> > > > ><http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655 >http://
www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655

[...]


--
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles @ reptile.ca
    supercanadian @ gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
 Make Television                                http://maketelevision.com/

SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to