From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2008 - 10:37:44 PDT
--- Jim Carlile <email suppressed> wrote:
> In the good old U. S. of A., copyright is seen as a
> property right, like
> owning a house. But it doesn't really matter in the
> practical sense, because
It's not really like owning a house, more like having
the lease on it, which is why it is wrong that they
talk in such terms of intellectual property. I guess
the right to copy could itself be seen as property
given peoples ability to buy and sell it, but that
isn't the same as the idea itself being property.
> here authors have no ultimate say in how their works
> are used. They don't have
> 'final cut' if they license their works to someone
Well that very much depends on how they license it of
course. This is how copyright licenses such as
creative commons work, allowing people to specify how
it is licensed.
> And when works enter the PD, anyone can do anything
> they want with them.
> They can cut them up or issue deluxe scholarly
> editions. That's just what
Exactly, which is a really good thing.
> The paradox here is that corporations may-- with
> perpetual copyright
> renewal-- succeed in always granting the copyright
> holder the rights to their
> material, forever. But they'll also make sure that
> THEY are the ones who will be
> holding those rights!
Yes because ultimately corporations aren't mortal, so
even if the artist doesn't sell their rights, they
would still be able to buy them after the artist has
died and for the rest of eternity. Not good.
Of course all this talk of copyright and large
corporations is not that relevant to the original
topic of ubuweb where it is actually often small
artists who really do own their own copyright but I
just hate to hear copyright being talked of in such a
misleading way as it damages something that is such a
positive force for good.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.