Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
This might be a useful link here - might be appropriate Creative Commons for the present..
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
-
Also, Creative Commons doesn't replace copyright, it is based on copyright and outlines specific permissions for the user.
Good post Matthew.
-
You're advocating for people to use creative commons, so why don't you use it yourselves?
I have been thinking about it. When we started, there wasn't a NZ Creative Commons licence, so we simply asserted rights.
It wouldn't be my place to simply slap a CC licence on the site without talking to the other contributors, who I have always regarded as owning the copyright in their own works, and I'd want to see how other text-based sites with a lot of user-generated content have handled it. But yeah, I should do that.
-
I wish the "creators" of popular music would sometimes acknowledge their sources. You know, the classical composers and folk songs that they never have to pay a dime to for a simple dumbing down or, remixing.
That might be a good starting point for joining this kind of discussion.
-
But yeah, I should do that.
It is interesting that David Haywood claims to have sold out of the first run of his ("superb and hilarious" - TLS) book which is a collection of articles already published on PA.
This despite the fact we can all check out the archives here and print them off at our leisure.
The message, pander to the consumer, stop fighting them.
-
This despite the fact we can all check out the archives here and print them off at our leisure.
I took the liberty of giving Professor Lessig a copy of Great New Zealand Argument: Ideas About Ourselves, which sold well, even though nearly everything in it was already available for free here:
-
I wish the "creators" of popular music would sometimes acknowledge their sources.
Oh..they do at times but it isn't always voluntary
-
The plural of mouse isn't mice in computer land...
In fact I believe it's mouses.
I quite like that, for some reason.
A Pedant
-
Whoops. Typo on my part. That bit was written late at night, and I also blame my sub-editor for failing to pick up on it :P
Oi! Don't blame me for your poor mastery of the English language. There's a reason I beat you at Scrabble several times a week :)
Russell, wouldn't it be better to change your model to allow authors to specify the license for the individual work as opposed to the site as a whole? Like the Flickr model where some of my images are CC and some are rights reserved. Given Cactus' proven ability for phearsome web development surely you guys can come up with something?
-
David: what?!
I'm advocating nothing. It's a report, not an opinion piece. Could you point to where, anywhere, in that column I have advocated for any position?Also, that PAS wishes to exercise its copyright in the site layout (which is what that copyright statement means) has no bearing on the copyright in any of the comments on this site that don't come from paid contributors. I have not received, nor been offered, any payment for this work, so the copyright in the article remains mine. Similarly all user comment has copyright vesting in the author. That's the law. Why should I not be free to publish my work where and when I see fit? I've not stated any kind of licence on that work, so how you infer that somehow I'm being hypocritical in reporting Professor Lessig's views is beyond me.
-
Simon, many thanks for that wikipedia link. I think this section captures the "creative" process rather nicely:
However, noted blues author and producer Robert Palmer states "It is the custom, in blues music, for a singer to borrow verses from contemporary sources, both oral and recorded, add his own tune and/or arrangement, and call the song his own".
And of course, there is nothing new on jazz, is there?
-
Given Cactus' proven ability for phearsome web development surely you guys can come up with something?
We've been waiting two years to be able to edit our own posts. Back of the queue CC-boy.
-
We've been waiting two years to be able to edit our own posts.
Hah. [[http://www.rubyonrails.org/|Rails] anyone? Jeez.
-
And of course, there is nothing new on jazz, is there?
Indeed, but watching the Ian Curtis bio-pic last night I was thinking to myself over and over again that nothing had ever sounded like this before that...sure there were signposts, like the Velvets and Bowie but what they did with those signposts was overwhelmingly original.
But, then that was the performance. The building blocks of those performances, i.e. the songs were not quite as individual without the performance to make them so.
And so it is with the likes of Coltrane's My Favourite Things.
Musically, I thoroughly approve of, and going further, wallow in the ethic that borrows from a creative past to make the present, and would like to see properly defined a fair use proviso (although such has been handily given a helping hand by the Lennon ruling of recent). I'm just nervous about where the demarcation comes.
The problem for Page / Plant of course was not the borrowing per se but the failure to credit..to claim what was not theirs to claim.
Not sure where I am going with this but i think it's back to that space I was in before I opted out of the last copyright thread so I should shut up.
-
Matthew:
Just as I have done here, he made the point ...
This leads me to conclude that it is not a simple report of Lessig's comments. Otherwise, why distinguish?
However, it's not at all clear which are Lessig's conclusions and which are your own opinions. You use examples he didn't, and you include phrases such as 'Lessig said' and 'Lessig argued' in some places but not others. I concluded from this that you endorsed and extended Lessig's argument. Apologies if this conclusion was unwarranted.
-
David, that sentence was poorly-worded on my part. What I meant was, I sought no permission for the quotes. The entire thing is factual, and the only example I used that he didn't was Lolcats. There are a number of people in this thread who were also present at the talk, and can verify that. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, I endorse his position. It's very close to my own. But I wrote that as an observer, not a supporter. And I still hold the copyright in that work, have not in any way released any rights to PAS (except to reproduce it, and I'd indicated the formatting choices that I desired when I sent it to Russell), and do actually object to the hypocrisy label. If one cannot discuss the flaws in copyright except on sites that operate under CC, one has extremely limited venues in which to try and make any kind of statement.
But, if it'll make you happy, and since you do raise a valid point, I'm stating here that the column is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial licence.
-
But, if it'll make you happy, and since you do raise a valid point, I'm stating here that the column is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial licence.
Cool.
That actually helps clarify my thoughts on how to approach it sitewide.
-
published under the Attribution-Noncommercial licence.
Cool.
That actually helps clarify my thoughts on how to approach it sitewide.
My suggestion would be to very clearly announce that the site layout is under ordinary, no-rights-granted, copyright, while the published content is under whichever form of CC licence you decide except where otherwise stated. Amongst other things Cactus have their own copyrights in the engine, and the last thing you want to do is tread on their toes.
PS: Can you pretty please fix that "Standford" boo-boo, and the formatting glitches :)
-
Hi Matthew, hypocrisy was poorly chosen on my part. Ironic would've been a much better word.
-
My suggestion would be to very clearly announce that the site layout is under ordinary, no-rights-granted, copyright, while the published content is under whichever form of CC licence you decide except where otherwise stated. Amongst other things Cactus have their own copyrights in the engine, and the last thing you want to do is tread on their toes.
And thank you again. My mind is yet clearer.
-
Although this does speak to something Leesig admitted was a grey area when I asked him a question after the lecture.
If someone is to take my text and place it on a website bearing advertising, even if it's Google ads, they're in the same business I am.
Is that commercial or non-commercial use? It's tricky, because I would expect to be able to use CC content here if I chose, and there are clearly advertisements on every page.
We make money in so many small ways on the internet, and it's not all that clear where the boundaries are.
I'd like to see a hybrid advertising network/CC content service -- so you'd transparently share revenue with the artist on every page impression if you took the advertising.
-
“Non-Commercial” means “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation”. The exchange of the Work for other copyright works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyright works.
That's from the CC ANC licence. So your use of NC-licensed CC works on PAS would fall within the accepted use, provided that no payment was made/received for the work. The existence of advertisements on PAS doesn't qualify, by any reasonable interpretation, as the published works being "intended for or directed towards commercial advantage". If you were to charge for access to a particular NC-licensed article, that would be a breach. It would also be distinctly arguable as to the permissibility of compiling those articles and then selling them. Maybe legal, maybe not. The licence does allow for compilation and dissemination, but making a book and then selling it appears to run directly counter to the non-commercial bit.
-
And the usual disclaimer: IANAL, IANALS(tudent), YMMV, offer not valid where prohibited by law, keep out of reach of children, avoid operating heavy machinery after use.
-
I'd like to see a hybrid advertising network/CC content service -- so you'd transparently share revenue with the artist on every page impression if you took the advertising.
Russell, thank you. That's exactly the type of approach I want too - using technology to allow sharing rewards to a variety of contributors. It's what I meant when I talked about an IP Bank on t'other thread:
It would market and make easily available our innovations over time, help negotiate implementation arrangements as they arise - and provide some transparent and long-term certainty that each creator's contribution will be both rewarded and be as widely available for use and return as possible
-
Matthew
I'm not so sure the non-commercial issue is that clear cut.
CC have a research project on the matter:
http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/9554
Post your response…
This topic is closed.