<<:: click that button to translate this page into any language, using the Fagan Finder Translation Wizard, it really works, try it Mikey, you'll likey!
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
copyright passing along others work...
.:: http://www.lessig.org/blog/ is one of my favorite places to glance glean and ponder::.
.
I first found out about this guy from a http://www.wired.com story line on the topic of frees peech and copyright concerns. Originally my interest in copyright was from work I did on an electronic book idea ( cost of entry into my concept was tied to cost of memory at the time, project got shelved.)E-book's did not do like the hype thought they would but it comes down to the issue of readability while sitting on the commuter train. There are good tools in the manufacturing of high contrast devices but that is a different track to talk about sometime.
.
One of the magazines I get in the post has been InformationWeek and while it has languished in its usefulness compared to other mags I get, this one caught my eye. "Who owns Weblog content?" (pg.20) by John Foley / jpfoley@cmp.com ... In the story he mentions Bob Roudebush who has a BLOG and does a good job of it IMO. But I was wondering what my old hero Lessig thought...
.
.::Here is a clip of Lessig's front page from today::.
.
the (c) office asks a brilliant question
.
I first found out about this guy from a http://www.wired.com story line on the topic of frees peech and copyright concerns. Originally my interest in copyright was from work I did on an electronic book idea ( cost of entry into my concept was tied to cost of memory at the time, project got shelved.)E-book's did not do like the hype thought they would but it comes down to the issue of readability while sitting on the commuter train. There are good tools in the manufacturing of high contrast devices but that is a different track to talk about sometime.
.
One of the magazines I get in the post has been InformationWeek and while it has languished in its usefulness compared to other mags I get, this one caught my eye. "Who owns Weblog content?" (pg.20) by John Foley / jpfoley@cmp.com ... In the story he mentions Bob Roudebush who has a BLOG and does a good job of it IMO. But I was wondering what my old hero Lessig thought...
.
.::Here is a clip of Lessig's front page from today::.
.
the (c) office asks a brilliant question
.
As is old news (but everything on the Lessig Blog is old news), the Copyright Office has asked for comments on whether a solution is needed to deal with "orphan works" -- works still under copyright but whose owner cannot be identified.
.
This, as PublicKnowledge notes, fantastic news. For many years, many have been trying to refocus this debate on copyright from the binary questions that p2p sharing seems to raise ("seems to") to the more pragmatic and fundamental questions that this insanely inefficient and bizarrely complex system of speech regulation called copyright raises. When Congress shifted our system of copyright from an "opt-in" to an "opt-out" regime, it transformed copyright from a system that automatically narrowed its protection (and hence regulation) to those works that had some continuing need for copyright protection, to a system that totally indiscriminately spreads copyright to every creative work reduced to a tangible form -- automatically, and for the full term of copyright.
This, as PublicKnowledge notes, fantastic news. For many years, many have been trying to refocus this debate on copyright from the binary questions that p2p sharing seems to raise ("seems to") to the more pragmatic and fundamental questions that this insanely inefficient and bizarrely complex system of speech regulation called copyright raises. When Congress shifted our system of copyright from an "opt-in" to an "opt-out" regime, it transformed copyright from a system that automatically narrowed its protection (and hence regulation) to those works that had some continuing need for copyright protection, to a system that totally indiscriminately spreads copyright to every creative work reduced to a tangible form -- automatically, and for the full term of copyright.
.
This issue is the focus of our challenge in Kahle v. Ashcroft. It is something I've been whining about in every publication that will have me (see, e.g., this op-ed in the LA Times).
.
This issue is the focus of our challenge in Kahle v. Ashcroft. It is something I've been whining about in every publication that will have me (see, e.g., this op-ed in the LA Times).
.
But this is an issue that I've only become aware of because of the writings and emails from many who visit this space. And it is time for you to speak to government. No one who read the emails that I've collected could think that this was not a problem. But the copyright office doesn't accept email inboxes. It reads submissions only. The requirements are simple. Submission is free. We'll be organizing as many submissions as we can at eldred.cc.
.
But please help spread the word: The Copyright Office needs to hear about every example of where the existing system is stifling the cultivation and spread of our culture. Not because Congress extends the term of copyright for Mickey Mouse. That battle is over. But because the way in which it protects Mickey Mouse blocks access to the balance of our copyrighted culture - for no good copyright, or free speech, related reason.
.
This point is clear to many. You need to make it clear to the government.
.
posted by [ Lessig ] on [ Jan 28 05 at 5:12 AM ] to [ free culture ] [ 13 comments ] [ post diffusion: 8 trackbacks + technorati ]
posted by [ Lessig ] on [ Jan 28 05 at 5:12 AM ] to [ free culture ] [ 13 comments ] [ post diffusion: 8 trackbacks + technorati ]
.
.::So Therefore::.
.::So Therefore::.
.
IMO the no good copyright or free speech related reason has to do with... I know I know, my soapbox; power. The current capitalist paradigm where by corporate office in the hopes of improving today's bottom line irregardless of the effect on tomorrow to 'make the shareholder happy.' So the corporate machine on the wagon to squeeze the nickel, influences the law through money and lobby and laws get effected and the affect is our government drifts with out clarity or seeming design towards a place where free speech is gone and George Orwell predicted. This is not just a Cassandra, not just a diatribe of a liberal, the sky is not falling today chicken little, BUT... through thoughtlessness of a system that is supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE, where is it all going?
.
If the concept of the Capitalist economy no longer works, what is next? I summarize that in my opinion the model does not work because in looking only at the bottom line for financial statement and the wants of the shareholders... generational issues are not equated or valued. What happens what is the effect of what is being done today on the generations of tomorrow? The sad thing is we are the shareholders. We are the market force that is like a wave that the corporate reacts to. If we the wave of humanity like something and demand is there, corporations will fill the need. But the effect is the same as the affect of true democracy. Majority of people are not concerned with the social consequences of actions, they are only concerned with basic needs; video games, fast food, sex and beer.
.
One senses the democracy model and the capital based model is the current best out there to be living in... The other sense though is just because this train has the best service does not mean it is not going to run off the track just the same. Casey Jones watch your speed.....
.
Soundoff, talkback, comments welcome. What ideas are there for other models that consider the best interests of the planet as much as region and locality and the individual? What new matrix is needed to judge ethics and morality whereby to sustain peace and good health to the largest number of people?
.
.
If the concept of the Capitalist economy no longer works, what is next? I summarize that in my opinion the model does not work because in looking only at the bottom line for financial statement and the wants of the shareholders... generational issues are not equated or valued. What happens what is the effect of what is being done today on the generations of tomorrow? The sad thing is we are the shareholders. We are the market force that is like a wave that the corporate reacts to. If we the wave of humanity like something and demand is there, corporations will fill the need. But the effect is the same as the affect of true democracy. Majority of people are not concerned with the social consequences of actions, they are only concerned with basic needs; video games, fast food, sex and beer.
.
One senses the democracy model and the capital based model is the current best out there to be living in... The other sense though is just because this train has the best service does not mean it is not going to run off the track just the same. Casey Jones watch your speed.....
.
Soundoff, talkback, comments welcome. What ideas are there for other models that consider the best interests of the planet as much as region and locality and the individual? What new matrix is needed to judge ethics and morality whereby to sustain peace and good health to the largest number of people?
.
.::How does copyright concern play in? .... questions, all questions::.
... xml
... rss
... rss in Beta
