• http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk Crosbie Fitch

    Or, simply abolish copyright, and restore rights to truth and privacy.

  • http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk Crosbie Fitch

    Hmmm. I think you need to turn this blog’s “Auto Sock-Puppet” comment ratio down from 50% to something closer to 0%.

    I’m outa here!

  • http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~paul_rogers Paul Rogers

    Wouldn’t the University of Houston students be protected under fair use if the productions were for a demonstrated educational purpose? Thanks so much for your work and for sharing your work!

  • http://lucychili.blogspot.com jh

    participation is the advertised goal of copyright.
    participation is the advertised goal of a commons.
    participation is an act of engagement with others.
    it is a social function of information flow.
    methods for managing individual fences around individual components of the flow of information are problematic because
    their starting point and goal has a different core value. control.
    broadcast models of information mamagement generate value from control. our problems are due to our increased ability to facilitate control, and our reduced ability to understand, express or engineer ways to work with information which are not founded in individual control of a broadcast.
    ie. the business models based in control of components are
    fundamentally breaking our ability to have good environmental, scientific, diplomatic, collaborative, holistic discussions and resulting decisions. individual right of way over components is breaking good governance and environmental responsibility, it is breaking good medical practice and making education participation and creativity a perilous activity.
    distributed participation requires that our social engineering takes as its first principle that people must be able to participate in the information flow which forms the cultural dialogue and infrastructure of our communities.
    the works are not orphans.
    the works are children of our community.
    they are children of the moment/venue, the child, the photographer, the parent, the developer of the photo, the retoucher, scanner, hosting company, blogger, reader but as with any kind of custody battle the goal should not be about the individual which has the most might winning the day, but should have an underlying understanding that
    the photo is an entity of itself with many contributing participants, and that it would be good if this component was able to be used in ways which enabled it to realise its full potential as a meme or contribution to our community.

    i feel that law uses a business model which works well with defined problems and well resourced defined protagonists, the law business model seems to be less effective in situations where the correct outcome is some kind of mediation or defense of diffuse public interest without an identifiable purse attendant.

    governance and law seem privatised at a time when global
    debate needs to address more subtle goals about far broader responsibilities than self.

  • icecow

    DRM is essential to stop developing alien civilizations from intercepting FM radio broadcasts, spurring a communist alien empire that will pose the biggest threat yet to our national security.

  • icecow

    Copyright keeps the world’s treasure trove of diverse views out of the hands of law abiding terrorists.

  • icecow

    I respect McJobs dedication to provide low-cost/high yeilding food, however, making food inaccessible to consumers increases (not decreases) the value of food. That value can then be passed on to the consumers.

  • icecow

    It’s hard enough keeping up with all the good free podcasts, web news articles, information-driven forums, and amazing home-brewed youtube videos. Abolishing copyright would just make things worse. Everyone would be completely saturated in knowledge and have no time to write. The creation of new media works would entirely cease to a halt, and the world’s minds would become entrapped in to the obsolete ideas of the past.

    People would wander aimlessly through the flood of knowledge, and start indulging in a ultra-wide range of different materials. The TV industry would collapse and people would no longer be thinking the identically same thing at the exact same time. Even if we figured out how to inject manditory-viewable commercials in to the freely availible media different people would see a wide range of conflicting laundry detergent commercials. Noone would be able to agree on which laundry detergent to buy, defeating the whole point of knowing which detergent is best. However, if there were only one monopolistic TV conglomerate there would be no confusion on which laundry detergent to buy. Though, some debate is needed so an Ogilopogy is in order. Anything beyond that would and people would not galvanize on which laundry detergent was best.

    Copyright is good.
    I can look you right in the eye and say the world should value all the works I’ve produced more than I should value the works the world has made freely availible for me to consume. For me not to be compensated would be a crime, and those criminals should be (they already are, woohoo!) fined years worth of pay. The pay should be given to me(yip, yip, yip), and the criminals should serve prison time(yee ha!) at tax payers expense. I’m a tax payer, damnit; I’m entitled.

  • http://lucychili.net jh

    Heres a group thinking about information as an ecology. KEI(CPTech) This is a link to the award theyve just won. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g4rg7
    “New ways of sharing information over the Internet are now rapidly expanding education and development opportunities, and creating vast new business opportunities for those who understand the new knowledge ecosystems.”
    They suggest:
    -Creating value from open standards,
    -Expanding access to scholarly and scientific research,
    -The sharing and repurposing of information in new knowledge
    -Knowledge as a shared asset and knowledge creation as collaboration, rather than a commodity, and
    -Using prizes rather than prices to stimulate drug development.

  • jh
  • icecow

    As long as air remains free the communists are still winning.

  • icecow

    I feel belligerent as I re-read what I wrote, but if the same things were said in a court they’d become law (or have already). That was my singing-to-the-choir off-topic point.

  • http://lucychili.blogspot.com jh

    icecow this one made me chuckle and wince:

  • Copyright is good. I can look you right in the eye and say the world should value all the works I’ve produced more than I should value the works the world has made freely available for me to consume.
  • cheers

  • http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/cm/anthropology/ Dan R

    An interesting take on how these issues may relate to claims by various groups of exclusive control over historic and/or cultural heritage was developed by David Lowenthal at spiked-culture last year: http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAFCC.htm

  • http://www.Digitization101.com Jill Hurst-Wahl

    (I’m resubmitting this because I didn’t see it show up)

    A student today asked if there is a difference between “orphan works” and “orphaned works.” I see that you use both phrases. My assumption is that they are interchangeable. Is that true?