Comments on: never again http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/ Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: Peter Tillers http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20703 Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:34:01 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20703 Professor’s Lessig’s announcement should be accompanied by a statement affirming (“reaffirming”?) that law schools should abjure the relative standing of law journals as one measure of the quality of the publications and performance of the faculty members of those law schools. And someday perhaps the law school as we know it will cease to exist; perhaps the standing of virtual legal scholarly communities will surpass the standing of the academic legal communities that are housed in specific geographical venues and that restrict full membership to a privileged and compensated few — principally tenured faculty members. A legal scholar should be judged and rewarded solely on the basis of the quality of his or her thoughts and arguments.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20702 Mon, 28 Mar 2005 04:53:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20702 3 VERY Blind Mice said -”long haired hippie people need not apply.

As I’ve said – those who make “hair” comments are obviously not interested in a serious discussion. They are blinded by the rhetoric of IP and wish to label those interested in making this world a better place as “communists” or “hippies” or some other meaningless name. Most likely they are people in the IP industry who see copyright, trademark, and patents as a means to their own selfish end. They want to package all of these up and place them under the IP umbrella – making this a 2-sided debate. A trick that politicians often use to sway the masses with reagards to various social issues. Sorry to disappoint, but I’m doubting that Lessig’s blog is where you will find an ignorant mass to follow your rhetoric.

Complete anonymity is another clue that one is not interested in finding out what is true. I do believe they call the likes of you on Slashdot.org – “Anonymous Cowards”.

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20701 Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:17:54 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20701 To Branko Collin,

Let’s discuss.

I will start with your assertion that license is not
a contract. Not all licenses are alike. Some licenses
are very simple that they do not add anything to
copyright in a work. Some licenses are very complex
that they add so many elements to copyright. Then,
there are many licenses that are between two extremes.

These extra elements are not always preempted by the U.S.
copyright law. Regarding these extra elements that are
not preempted by the copyright law, where do you think
that the licensor get the power to enforce the extra
elements? The answer is the state and common laws that
cover the agreements between parties. In many ways,
license is like contract but there are some differences
that keep them apart. Regardless of these differences,
the license can be enforced under contract law if it
covers license. If contract law does not specifically
cover license, there will be other state laws or common
laws that cover the license.

Why do we need state or common laws to deal with license?
Precisely because copyright law does not cover the extra
elements as found in license.

The most common extra element in license is the manifestation
of agreement between two parties. Copyright law does not
need any agreement from anyone for it applies to everyone
in the U.S. But, license needs an agreement because otherwise,
it is worthless. GPL allows you to do certain things as long
as you agree to the conditions as stated in GPL. Without
the agreement, GPL is just a blob of words. GPL has no effect
on anyone who does not agree to it or does not see it.

When you sue someone for breaching the conditions in your
license, you do not use the copyright law to prove that the
violator agrees to your conditions. You have to turn to
state or common laws to prove that the violator agrees to
your conditions. It happens that one of these laws is a
contract law. In this case, license acts like a contract
even though you do not want to call it as a contract.

Before I go on, not all licenses have conditions. A very
plain license does not need any agreement. For example, an
author may write a license like this: “I hereby grant everyone
to copy my novel.” In this case, it is totally unilateral
meaning that the people who see the license are not obligated
to do anything to gain the author’s grant.

Are there any other extra elements in GPL that are not
preempted by the copyright law? Yes. Here is the list of
extra elements:

1. Definition of “program” is broader than the scope of
copyrightable work.

2. Definition of “derivative work” is broader than the
definition of derivative work in the U.S. copyright law.

3. The requirement to include the notice of disclaimer
of warranty and GPL in the copies of program.

4. The requirement to notify people of any changes
you made to the program.

5. The requirement to license your work, that contains
any portion of program, under the same terms of GPL.

6. The requirement to make your source code available
to others.

7. The requirement to provide royalty-free license of
patent.

There may be other elements that I have not listed but
the above should give you general idea of how many
extra elements there are in GPL.

None of these elements are covered by the U.S. copyright
law. You can’t enforce these elements through the copyright
law. So, how can you enforce these elements? Through
state and common laws including contract law.

There are four different situations that can happen.

1. No violation of copyright law and license.

There is nothing to be said here. It has no consequence.

2. Violation of copyright law but not violation of license.

In this second situation, this means that a person has not
seen the license or does not agree to license. If he
copies someone else’s program and distributes without the
permission from the author of the program, the author
can sue him only under the copyright law. The license
has no affect in this situation. This is simple and
everyone is familiar with this.

3. Violation of copyright law and violation of license.

This third situation is familiar to everyone as well.
If a person breaches any condition in license, he
loses the permission to copy and distribute program.
And because he already copies and distributes program,
he infringes the author’s copyright.

4. Violation of license but not violation of copyright
law.

This fourth situation is not well known to the lay
people. Here is an example of the situation: I
copy 1% of GPL-covered software. That 1% is allowed
by the Fair Use Doctrine or Merger Doctrine. Therefore,
there is no copyright infringement. I include that
1% in my own program and distribute only executable
code to the public without making the source code
available. There is no problem with that, in
spite of what Section 5 in GPL says. Section 5 in
GPL is not entirely accurate. The lay people who
are not familiar with the copyright law are easily
misled by Section 5 in believing that there is no
way to copy, modify, or distribute any portion of
program outside of GPL.

However, if I agree to GPL at first place, I will
breach the conditions in GPL if I do the above.
In this case, the licensor has to use state and
common laws to sue me for breaching the conditions.
Nothing in the copyright law gives the licensor
the privilege to sue me precisely because the
code that I copied and distributed without making
the source code available is not copyright
infringement.

This fourth situation shows the true nature of
license – that it is or acts like a contract.

Next, I will argue against your assertion that I am
misrepresenting Richard Stallman’s position. I have no
problem with his own philosophy but I have problem with his
presentation of his philosophy. He is like a marketer that
uses the dynamic, energy-filled, exciting, noble name of
“freedom” and “free” to mislead people in believing that
the GPL-software is truly free (in respect to freedom, not
price). Imagine the lack of luster if he does not use
“free” or “freedom”. Let’s see if GPL-covered software is
truly free as compared with the public domain software. The
obvious difference between two software is the conditions.
GPL imposes conditions on the people who agree to GPL. Public
domain on the other hand imposes no conditions on the users.
Freedom, by several definitions, means absence of restriction
or control.

I have no problem with people choosing to use GPL but tell
GPL as it is, not as it pretends to be. GPL is not about free
(in respect to freedom, not price). GPL is about control over
the allocation of rights, privileges, and permissions and the
behavior of people. GPL does not allow anyone who do not agree
to its conditions to enter the gate to the library of
GPL-covered software. It is like the old days when libraries
were private. The patrons were given special privileges to
access the private libraries. Those people who do not have
special privileges are denied the access to the same libraries.
The public domain is much like the modern public libraries
where no one needs special privilege to access them.

If you can show me where Richard Stallman actually supports
public domain for some software, I will stand corrected.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: Tayssir John Gabbour http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20700 Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:22:47 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20700 tayssir john gabbour you are confusing the free market, which necessarily operates under the rule of law, with anarchy. there is nothing socialist – closet or otherwise – about those of us who believe in the ownership and accumulation of private property and the proper role of government in protecting same.

You refuse to believe even in YOUR OWN private property! If you own a computer, the state won’t permit you use it to copy and redistribute certain numbers YOU OWN. ;) Even though your private property is designed to do it.

Can’t copy a book you own and offer it freely, probably can’t even make a store to sell your property with 1-click ordering. Can’t sing Happy Birthday for certain purposes. For the Collective Good.

Eh “komrade,” you might like China, it’s still communist and is happily absorbing our manufacturing and tech. ;)

]]>
By: Branko Collin http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20699 Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:57:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20699 The freedoms that they claim to provide are strictly privileges that are granted to people who agree to the terms and conditions in the license.

You amaze me, Joseph. I thought you knew at least a little bit about copyright, but you are missing even the basic stuff.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has to agree to any terms or conditions in a copyright license. A license is not a contract.

You are probably confused with EULAs and Shrinkwrap “Licenses”, which are contracts that pretend to be licenses.

Lay people should educate themselves that GPL or any license that comes with conditions does not grant any freedom

Anything you are allowed to do once you meet the conditions, and that you were not allowed to do under copyright, is a freedom.

The freedoms granted in licenses for proprietary products are usually so limited that they are laughable, and the language of such licenses often dwell on what you are not allowed to do (re-iterating copyright law); but the GPL is not like that.

Where can they find the real freedoms? Only in the public domain. But then, the public domain proves too powerful for Richard Stallman that he refuses to recognize the true freedoms in it and he misuses the noble name of freedom to extol his GPL.

Now you are truly sinking to the level of the three blind mice. You are misrepresenting Stallman’s position, who actually has a very nuanced stance on copyright. And he certainly advocates public domain grants for some forms of software.

You are allowed to not understand why the GPL is what it is. But don’t smear licenses and people just because you do not understand them.

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20698 Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:41:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20698 To three blind mice,

You are using Richard Stallman’s language to argue
against him. When you use his language, you
implicitly accept his interpretation of freedom
(“Restrictions are freedom.”). There is no “free”
(in respect to liberty) thing about “free software”
in respect to Stallman.

I am sure that you do not intend to do that but it
is amazing how he can influence your thinking by
making you accept his own definitions of “free”
and “freedom”. I don’t have the collection of
your comments to give you the examples because
it is copyright infringement to collect your
comments but I detected some Stallmanism in your
comments once in a while.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20697 Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:26:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20697 It is amazing that his propaganda works so well that even three blind mice fell for it.

joseph pietro riolo, we’re not sure to what you are referring, but we assure you – there’s nothing that richard stallman is selling that we mice are buying. his rotten cheese is being left on the trap where it belongs.

tayssir john gabbour you are confusing the free market, which necessarily operates under the rule of law, with anarchy. there is nothing socialist – closet or otherwise – about those of us who believe in the ownership and accumulation of private property and the proper role of government in protecting same.

extending government’s reach into cyberspace is not socialism, it is an extension of the free market to rescue it FROM socialism, or at least wrest it from those who would condemn it to socialist utility.

long haired hippie people need not apply.

]]>
By: Tayssir John Gabbour http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20696 Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:11:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20696 Some of you do realize you’re being closet socialists by advocating current IP laws, right? ;) These are anti- free market laws. Where is the capitalist ideal of the free market when talking about copyright/patents? It is all about state intervention.

The GPL itself merely is against this anti-freemarket communism. Because ideas have more value on the free market.

Unlike what Bill Gates claims, there are many communists. Who claim it is all for “art’s sake and intellectual freedom through state enforcement,” like a Soviet might claim. They just don’t like thinking of themselves this way. ;)

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20695 Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:45:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20695 Commenting on Rob Myers’ comment dated March 22, 2005
at 6:05am.

There is no freedoms in Creative Commons Licenses and
GPL. The freedoms that they claim to provide are strictly
privileges that are granted to people who agree to the
terms and conditions in the license. It is like an
association that grants privileges to its members that
are not available to the public.

People are confusing privilege with freedom. Although
one of freedom’s definitions includes privilege, people
are still confusing that definition with other more
common definitions of freedom that are closer to liberty.

Richard Stallman is speaking Orwellian language to claim
that his license (GPL) provides freedoms. It is amazing
that his propaganda works so well that even three blind mice
fell for it. Lay people should educate themselves that
GPL or any license that comes with conditions does not
grant any freedom but grants only privileges that are available
only to the people who agree to be bound to the conditions
as outlined in the license. Where can they find the real
freedoms? Only in the public domain. But then, the public
domain proves too powerful for Richard Stallman that he
refuses to recognize the true freedoms in it and he misuses
the noble name of freedom to extol his GPL.

My friends, don’t confuse privilege (found only in one
definition of freedom) with liberty (found in many
definitions of freedom).

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20694 Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:02:40 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20694 thank you don’t hate the mice for your kind comments.

we are huge fans of professor lessig and have learned more from him and from the rest of you who challenge our ideas than from hanging out with those who reinforce them.

this blog is indeed similar to many other mutual admiration socities on the web, but speaking from our personal experiences, it is also remarkable for the way in which dissenters such as we are generally well-treated.

of course when we get a little too close to the truth, we are called names, but this means nothing to us. cut of our tails and they grow back. heck, compared to the farmer’s wife and her carving knife you people are friendly little pussy cats.

if anything, we mice hope you will sharpen your dull arguments and make this a bit more challenging for us.

the cheese tastes better when its harder for us to grasp from your hands and we’ve been putting on too much weight.

]]>
By: don't hate the mice http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20693 Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:53:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20693 Though I don’t agree with much of their opinions, the three blind mice have often posted useful and provocative thoughts here. They see the opinions many of us share and happen to disagree. Presenting another opinion does not make these mice into trolls. A common criticism of the world of blogs is that people tend to spend time reading only things they agree with, and no progress is ever made since dissent is crushed.

In fact, it has crossed my mind on several occasions that there are no mice – that perhaps Professor Lessig himself would post arguments contrary to his own point of view to create discussion under another name. I doubt this is actually the case, but I do think the points the mice make are among the most difficult to counter.

]]>
By: Rob Myers http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20692 Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:05:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20692 if you have spent anytime here you would know that the mice are not trolls – we are merely dissenters.

If the “dissenters” could avoid repeatedly mischaracterising people’s positions on copyright that would go a long way to making them look less like trolls.

Anyway.

One thing that is interesting in Lessig’s original post is his characterisation of BY-NC as providing freedoms. For the original author, NC reserves a freedom (you are free to exclusively exploit your work commercially later). And for end-users, BY-NC allows free access. But for everyone else (publishers, other writers), neither BY or NC are freedoms, they are restrictions. In comparison, the Stallmanian “four freedoms” are for everyone, especially producers.

This is possibly a problem for the CC licenses; they can provide unequal mixes of freedoms and responsibilities. But in practice an unequal mixture is much better than none at all.

]]>
By: wainer http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20691 Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:18:05 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20691 Entirely agree, but entirely unworkable for me as a young scholar.

]]>
By: Joe Gratz http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20690 Sun, 20 Mar 2005 04:06:09 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20690 You’ll be pleased to note that Minnesota Law Review’s sister journal, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology, has recently revised its publication agreement to explicitly allow authors to distribute their works freely for noncommercial purposes, with attribution to the author and the Journal. This was intended to remove uncertainty about whether authors could post their articles to SSRN, but has the happy side effect of making our publication agreement compatible with most Creative Commons licenses, should the author so choose.

Indeed, the last issue of the Journal contains my Note, which was released under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial license.

]]>
By: Esther Hoorn http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20689 Sat, 19 Mar 2005 04:37:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20689 Dr Lessig,
I am happy to see that you set a public example of the possibilities of writers and boards of law reviews to negotiate licenses that balance all interests involved. In the Netherlands a nationwide program involving all university libraries built an network of digital academic repositories (DARE). I believe this architectural possibility of self-achiving gives value to the decision not to hand over the author rights to the publisher. In the project Truth or DARE we seek to challenge authors in the field of law to explain their arguments if they decide otherwise. And some authors are indeed succesfully negotiating different license agreements. Because of this project I am very interested to know more on similar initiatives in the field of law. And I am a bit puzzled by remark:
At this point, I know of one law journal that may, soon, be able to publish my work..
I know more, but are we to expect a PLOS Legal one of these days?

]]>
By: Dru http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20688 Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:54:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20688 I will read Lessig’s work wherever he publishes it (I like books more than journals anyway). And maybe his “never again” statement will be retracted now that several journals have offered him any contract terms he wants. From the standpoint of a completely selfish fan, though, a Lessig-shaped hole in the law journal world could be filled by four or five up-and-coming, yet-untenured writers. For a moment there, he had our hopes up. :-) Perhaps author-unfriendly contracts foster market entry by new players? Is there an anti-oligopoly effect?

]]>
By: David Geraud http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20687 Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:51:41 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20687 Hi

The proof that it is never too late to make coherent its acts and its words.

David

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20686 Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:57:15 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20686 To Peter Rock,

Yes, Terry Newland could have prevented you from making
copies of his book and selling the same. However, I notice
that there is no copyright notice in “Mind is a Myth” and
it was published in 1988 presumably in India. If it were
published in the U.S., the book would be in the public
domain because of the lack of copyright notice (before
March 1, 1989) unless it is cured. I don’t know about
the copyright law in India and I can’t say if copyright
notice is required to gain copyright in a work in India.
Moreover, it is a foregin work which has a little more
protection than domestic (in the U.S.) works. Without
knowing India’s copyright law, I could not answer properly.

You asked what is “it” that Terry Newland could claim
copyright in. That “it” is the set of all words that
appeared in his book. If the book teaches you something,
the fluid, unseen, unfixed knowledge that it imparts
to you is wholly uncopyrightable. But, you can’t simply
memorize the words in the book and speak the same words
to teach others. That is called performance which is
one of the exclusive rights in the U.S. copyright.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: Stephen Lindholm http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20685 Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:41:32 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20685 I think what you say about law journal copyrights is true. I would
actually prefer to have the articles immediately put into the public
domain (and marked as such), rather than secretly maintaining the
copyrights myself, so that people would feel free to redistribute what
I write if they think it’s interesting. I don’t think anyone’s ever
become rich from academic article royalties, and I doubt I’d be the
first.

I agree that Westlaw and Lexis are responsible to some extent, but I
actually got a get-out-of-jail free e-mail from the corporate legal
department at Lexis. They’ve said it’s all right to put a notice in my
“author footnotes” releasing the article to the public domain five
years after publication. Perhaps I could have asked for a lesser time
period, but it took months for my request to percolate through, so I
didn’t push my luck. I’ve published two articles so far, and both
journals were willing to put in the endorsement when I forwarded them
the e-mail.

I put a notice on the bottom of all copies of articles I send out (for
any purpose) that the article is released to the public domain. I’m
not a fan of “licenses,” for personal preference and for a legal
reason.

* I see “IP” licenses as a pathology of greedy computer software
makers which have metastized into a lot of other things where they
have no business being, and I think authors are a little hypocritical
when they demand to hold onto some rights while telling publishers
that information deserves to be free.

* The legal reason is that under 17 USC 205(e), as I understand it, a
prior non-exclusive license grant is invalidated by a subsequent
copyright transfer unless the grant was signed. I don’t see any reason
this wouldn’t apply to redistribution licenses, but the Free Software
Foundation’s general counsel is a law professor at Columbia and he
thinks otherwise about the GPL, so who am I to argue. Maybe he thinks
estoppel will protect the GPL, but that doesn’t seem very prudent.
Maybe there’s some spot-on caselaw out there interpreting the word
“signed” very broadly that he knows about.

Some authors are really concerned about having their work attributed
to them. I think the practical risk for academics is almost nil
(unlike, say, a children’s book writer or a photographer), and there
is the very serious problem I mentioned that an author could be forced
to revoke a previously granted license by someone who later buys out
his copyright. (This supposedly happened in the Mattel / cphack hubbub,
although, again, free software people insist otherwise.) There is also
precedent (Waldman Publishing v. Landoll) saying that the Lanham Act
(and perhaps state law) protects even public domain works from mis-
attribution, although that is of course far from settled.

Other authors simply believe that they should be entitled to hold onto
their copyrights, under some kind of Lockean theory of property. I
don’t buy that. On a practical level it’s hard to convince journals
with that kind of argument, when Westlaw and Lexis and offering higher
royalties for acquiring the author’s copyright. On a philosophical
level, those same arguments support infinite copyright terms and
software patents.

One could transfer the copyright on journal articles to a third party
before journal submission, but that’s near-fraudulent at the very
least.

The notice on the bottom of my articles puts journals on notice that
(a) I’m the kind of author who cares about that sort of thing and (b)
there is no more copyright to “transfer.” The edited article might be
deemed a derivative work, so I think having the edited article go into
the public domain after five years is a fair compromise. I also check
to make sure that the journal will let me post the article on my own
web site (a matter of contract, not copyright), in order that in the
meantime people who are interested in my work will have the
opportunity to read it.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20684 Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:48:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20684 “Terry Newland is the one that could be considered as the author of the book for the purpose of copyright”

So do you think that if I made my own copies of “Mind is a Myth” and began to sell them that Newland would have the legal weight to stop me? That would be a fascinating legal case!

“Teaching by itself is not copyrightable and therefore, copyright can’t be claimed or disclaimed in his teaching. His statement saying that his teaching
has no copyright therefore is meaningless.”

I understand. So what is “it” then that is copyrighted by Newland? It appears as though there is nothing copyrightable if the expression contained in the book is defined as “a teaching”. For Newland to attempt to reserve publication rights appears paradoxical as there is nothing to be claimed.

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20683 Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:42:21 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20683 To Peter Rock,

Regarding the “disclaimer” that you quoted from U.G.
Krishnamurti’s book “Mind is a Myth”, I checked the book
and it is not clear whether he ever wrote anything in the
book. It seems that Terry Newland fixed the conversations
with U.G. Krishnamurti in tangible thing (that is, book)
and therefore, Terry Newland is the one that could be
considered as the author of the book for the purpose of
copyright. If my analysis is correct, U.G. Krishnamurti
has no standing (to speak legalese) to proclaim that the
fixed expressions have no copyright.

But, assuming that U.G. Krishnamurti has the standing to
proclaim that his teaching has no copyright, he is wrong
on that point. Teaching by itself is not copyrightable
and therefore, copyright can’t be claimed or disclaimed
in his teaching. His statement saying that his teaching
has no copyright therefore is meaningless.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: Delaune http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20682 Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:49:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20682 Based on the number of law reviews (including Minn. L. Rev.) indicating willingness to accept CC licensed submissions, or at least to consider accepting them, I’d say we’ve come a long way since 1996, when I was on the board of a big name law review.

Back then, of course, there were no CC licenses. But if you were a submitting author, and you wanted to retain your own copyright in a work of yours we published, you had to a) ask for it, and b) “be important enough” (read “have market power”). Lessig would qualify under that standard now (cf. West Wing) but probably not then, and indeed, we routinely denied requests to publish articles submitted by insufficiently “important” authors who wished to retain copyright in their works. (Shame on us.)

I’m glad to see that particular culture crumbling; I hope that all authors can be the beneficiaries.

]]>
By: Peter Rock http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20681 Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:18:15 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20681 “we are merely dissenters”

No you’re not. You are a follower who apparently suffers from “split rodent personality”. Dissenters do not hide. True dissent is public. True dissent is putting your name on something, admitting when you misjudge, and continually pressing for change no matter what Anonymous Cowards waste their time commenting upon through discussion blogs.

“in the rip, mix, burn world of free culture, copyright exists only as a means for an author to donate the fruits of her labor to the commons where it may reside unpolluted by commercial interest”

This is where you are wrong – oh IP Jedi Believer. Commerce is what the rip, mix, burn world is all about. Take, take, take and make, make, make. It’s a damn mantra for christ’s sake. Wake up and smell the coffee you…you…trio of rodents! Are you not aware at all? Are you really THAT focused on protecting the attitudes of old that you are completely blinde….oh, wait….never mind.

But seriously…”unpolluted by commercial interest”?

Are you kidding?

Queen’s “Under Pressure” followed by the tremendously lame “Ice Ice Baby” was, IMHO, tortuous to live through – but most profitable for both artists and IP lawyers alike. There was a settlement and all sorts of uproar over IP – just what you leeches like – a real IP bloodfest. Quit following the Eisner propaganda and think for yourself. You three rodents are so “blinded” by making quick $$$ from law interpretation/manipulation that you can’t even see straight. Watch who you cane young (wo)man – you just may be biting the hand of your feeder. Mac is more on your side than you think.

]]>
By: jb http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20680 Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:38:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20680 hmm. you mean

1. no lessig article unless the publication will allow you to license your article under BY-NC (or BY).

or,

2. no lessig article unless the publication itself is licensed under CC ?

i guess you meant 1, as you license your wired columns under BY, but maybe you have a different rule for academic publications.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2005/03/never-again/#comment-20679 Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:33:57 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/03/never_again.html#comment-20679 branko collin, if you have spent anytime here you would know that the mice are not trolls – we are merely dissenters.

As far as I understand, he is a proponent of copyright.

merely semantics our good man. let’s be honest here. in the rip, mix, burn world of free culture, copyright exists only as a means for an author to donate the fruits of her labor to the commons where it may reside unpolluted by commercial interest.

you see it is not enough to give your work away for free, it is vital that you have the legal tools to make sure that no one else can make money from it either!

god forbid that commercial outfits like lexis/nexis would use copyright to justify the investment in providing useful on-line information. information wants to be free. certainly, it is only a matter of time before unpaid volunteers create these vast databases.

in free culture copyright is simply a tool to keep free information free, it is no longer a capitalistic economic incentive.

it would certainly be a delicious irony for the free culture crowd to see copyright hoist by its own petard, but the human nature of self-interest no doubt has the stronger kung-fu.

]]>