|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Roy SchestowitzRoy Schestowitz Date: Jul 15, 2008 20:26
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
No FT, No Idea
,----[ Quote ]
| Copyright is supposed to provide an *incentive* to create, not a *reward* for
| having created. Increasing the term of copyright protection will not suddenly
| make ageing rockers more creative. Moreover, the prospect of an extra 45
| years' protection is highly unlikely to make young rockers rush out and
| create more. So this is a pure loss for the public domain. Thanks for
| nothing, Charlie.
`----
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-ft-no-idea.html
DMCA...
Software patents...
Copyrights...
Snooping...
Mccreevy seems to think that assimilation to the Bush administration is
something to be proud of. Lessig should keep an eye on him too.
Here's something for the British Librarisoft to keep an eye on:
|
| Show full article (5.61Kb) |
|
| | 249 Comments |
|
|
Author: HomerHomer Date: Jul 16, 2008 04:24
Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | an extra 45 years' protection is highly unlikely to ...
... reduce copyright violation. In fact it'll criminalise that which was
previously legal, thus exacerbating the problem by a huge factor.
> | Thanks for nothing, Charlie.
> `----
If he really wanted to "protect" something worthwhile, he should have
stayed in Fianna Fáil.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----
|
| Show full article (0.87Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Phil Da Lick!Phil Da Lick! Date: Jul 16, 2008 10:44
Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | an extra 45 years' protection is highly unlikely to ...
>
> ... reduce copyright violation. In fact it'll criminalise that which was
> previously legal, thus exacerbating the problem by a huge factor.
>
>> | Thanks for nothing, Charlie.
>> `----
>
> If he really wanted to "protect" something worthwhile, he should have
> stayed in Fianna Fáil.
>
Ole Charlie is desperately trying to salvage something from the mess of
the Irish No vote. He's doing it in the only way he knows how - by
bending over for american multinationals.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Andrew HalliwellAndrew Halliwell Date: Jul 16, 2008 11:08
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | an extra 45 years' protection is highly unlikely to ...
>
> ... reduce copyright violation. In fact it'll criminalise that which was
> previously legal, thus exacerbating the problem by a huge factor.
Only if the copyright extension is retroative...
And is it legally possible to do that?
Such a thing is theft, after all... They're stealing property that belonged
to the public domain and putting it back under a copyright umbrella.
Anyone copying and selling such works and taken to court would be well
within their expectations to be able to say "This work has been part of the
public domain for 20 years, I have committed no crime in copying, packaging
and selling it. It belongs to me, it belongs to you, it belongs to everyone
in this courtroom, and has done for 20 years. What right does anyone have to
take our property away?"
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Roy SchestowitzRoy Schestowitz Date: Jul 16, 2008 18:12
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Andrew Halliwell on Wednesday 16 July 2008 09:08 : \____
> Homer slated.org> wrote:>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | an extra 45 years' protection is highly unlikely to ...
>>
>> ... reduce copyright...
|
| Show full article (2.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BenBen Date: Jul 16, 2008 18:28
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> No FT, No Idea
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Copyright is supposed to provide an *incentive* to create, not a *reward* for
> | having created. Increasing the term of copyright protection will not suddenly
> | make ageing rockers more creative. Moreover, the prospect of an extra 45
> | years' protection is highly unlikely to make young rockers rush out and
> | create more. So this is a pure loss for the public domain. Thanks for
> | nothing, Charlie.
> `----
>
> http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-ft-no-idea.html
>
> DMCA...
>
> Software patents... ...
|
| Show full article (6.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: LinonutLinonut Date: Jul 16, 2008 19:27
* Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
> The life of the author + 70 years is a long enough copyright term IMHO.
> It allows a person or group of people to benefit from what they've
> created, and I dare say it allows their children and even grandchildren
> to benefit too, with the clause that the copyright lasts for 70 years
> after the author's death. Adding extra to that is... A bit silly,
> really, and I don't think I know anyone who thinks artists, programmers,
> authors, etc. could benefit from this. And I know a few of each of the
> above.
I thought copyrights were meant to ensure enough of living to permit the
author to keep on creating, not to ensure that his children can sit on
their asses spending the author's trust.
--
Reporter (to Mahatma Gandhi): Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western
Civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Andrew HalliwellAndrew Halliwell Date: Jul 16, 2008 19:58
> The life of the author + 70 years is a long enough copyright term IMHO.
Long *enough*?
It's waaaaay too long.
Why should great, great grand children STILL profit from the sale of books
published over 150 years ago?
It's Obscene! That's what it is.
> It allows a person or group of people to benefit from what they've
> created, and I dare say it allows their children and even grandchildren
> to benefit too,
Try great great... when you consider people can have great grand children at
the age of 80, they might not die until their late 90s or even 100s, and
then it's another 70 years AFTER that...
it's quite possible for quite a few greats to be in that line.
with the clause that the copyright lasts for 70 years
> after the author's death. Adding extra to that is... A bit silly,
> really, and I don't think I know anyone who thinks artists, programmers,
> authors, etc. could benefit from this. And I know a few of each of the
> above.
|
| Show full article (1.51Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: HadronHadron Date: Jul 16, 2008 20:03
Andrew Halliwell ponder.sky.com> writes:
>> The life of the author + 70 years is a long enough copyright term IMHO.
>
> Long *enough*?
> It's waaaaay too long.
> Why should great, great grand children STILL profit from the sale of books
> published over 150 years ago?
>
> It's Obscene! That's what it is.
You're a fucking idiot Halliwell. Why should you profit from a
University education in Institutions set up 100s of years ago?
Why should you inherit any money from family who earned it themselves.
|
| Show full article (1.85Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: HomerHomer Date: Jul 16, 2008 20:14
Verily I say unto thee, that Andrew Halliwell spake thusly:
> Homer slated.org> wrote:>> ... reduce copyright violation. In fact it'll criminalise that
>> which was previously legal, thus exacerbating the problem by a huge
>> factor.
>
> Only if the copyright extension is retroative...
Actually I was thinking more about future generations.
> And is it legally possible to do that?
No, not AFAIK. I'd hope not, anyway.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----
|
| Show full article (0.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
