> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 04:36:09PM -0400, Simón Ruiz wrote:
>> Copyleft—the GNU license, Creative Commons etc.—as I understand them,
>> are clever hacks designed to subvert the copyright system as it
>> stands, basically to *free* people from it. Artists who choose these
>> licenses are expressing disgust with the system.
>
> Now, I disagree with you there. I don't think there's any implication
> of disgust.
No, you're right, mere use is no implication of disgust.
However, their creators were openly motivated by disgust.
>> These licenses may derive their legal teeth from copyright itself, but
>> they exist as criticisms of it. They are good, I'd say, not because of
>> our copyright system but in spite of it.
>
> Again, I disagree with you.
>
> I think it is easy to be dissatisfied with copyright out of a general
> disgust with the manipulations of "intellectual property" talk made by
> the media on behalf of big business. There's an active attempt to blur
> the lines between things right and good (like copyright) and things
> wrong and bad (like software patents).
I've heard plenty of bad stuff being done with copyright itself. The
letters RIAA and MPAA conjur up as much evil in the minds of some as
the name Microsoft might to others.
>> I hear this "We have a crappy implementation of it, but copyright is
>> good in principle" idea often, but I'm not sure I know which principle
>> is being talked about.
>>
>> What is this principle? Can we name it?
>
> How about from "Principles of copyright" located at
> http://www.damic.qc.ca/damic/eng/pages/rights/principe.htm :
>
> |Copyright is a legal convention which recognizes the paternity of a work
> |to its author's natural person. It is based on two types of fundamental,
> |inalienable, perpetual, imprescriptible and complementary rights: moral
> |rights and patrimonial rights.
>
> The principles then appear to boil down to:
> * Moral rights: It is mine, and you can not change it.
> * Patrimonial rights:
> * Exclusive proprietory rights: I, alone, own it.
> * Remuneration right: I can be paid for it.
>
> The Creative Commons licenses offer finer control over these rights.
>
> It does not appear to conflict with them. I see nothing about these
> rights and the CC licenses which even conflict.
These principles I can get behind.
I'd say that not only do CC licenses not conflict with these ideas,
they better reflect them than traditional copyright does now.
I believe society has some rights itself when it comes to its members'
brain work, though.
No one's creative works comes wholly formed to their brain in a
vacuum, it is as much a product of society as it is theirs
individually, and society should have a right to it after a reasonable
time.
I think it's stupid that large, important parts of our shared culture
essentially do not belong to us, legally.
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
> Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E
Cheers,
Simón
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment