1. Summary
  2. Files
  3. Support
  4. Report Spam
  5. Create account
  6. Log in

Intellectual property

From pangaia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 5: Line 5:
* Despite the term "copyright" it is not about preserving a right to copy, but the right to ''keep your name'' attached to your work.  That is, no one can take your work and re-brand it under ''their'' name.  Technically, no one can legally deprive you of your own liberty to "do what you want" for non-commercial and non-redistributive purposes.
* Despite the term "copyright" it is not about preserving a right to copy, but the right to ''keep your name'' attached to your work.  That is, no one can take your work and re-brand it under ''their'' name.  Technically, no one can legally deprive you of your own liberty to "do what you want" for non-commercial and non-redistributive purposes.
-
* Despite prior case law history, copyright and fair-use allow anyone to enjoy the work that has been published.  The act of "publishing" (relating as it does to putting it to the ''publi''c) has put the work in the public domain.  You (the "author) can't simultaneously wish to put it in the public domain (to earn money, for ex), and wish to limit its access ''to'' the public -- these are two contradictory aims and the law cannot be put in the middle.  The market (and/or the creator's ingenuity at hiding or convoluting his work) is the only mechanism to resolve this (significant) issue.  [[Pangaia]] and the [http://creativecommons.org CreativeCommons] is made to resolve this issue.
+
* Despite prior case law history, copyright and fair-use allow anyone to enjoy the work that has been published.  The act of "publishing" (relating as it does to putting it to the ''publi''c) has put the work in the public domain.  You (the ''author'') can't simultaneously wish to put it in the public domain (to earn money, for ex), and wish to limit its access ''to'' the public -- these are two contradictory aims and the law cannot be put in the middle.  The market (and/or the creator's ingenuity at hiding or convoluting his work) is the only mechanism to resolve this (significant) issue.  [[Pangaia]] and the [http://creativecommons.org CreativeCommons] is made to resolve this issue.
* Fair-use allows others to make use of your work in derivative exhibitions, as long as you preserve attribution and do not deprive the author of legitimate (financial) gains therefrom.  Mainly this means, as established in academia through the centuries, the ability to use your work freely as long as it is staying in a shared, community *commons*.  Hence the work also of L. Lessig with the [[wiki:CreativeCommons|CreativeCommons]].
* Fair-use allows others to make use of your work in derivative exhibitions, as long as you preserve attribution and do not deprive the author of legitimate (financial) gains therefrom.  Mainly this means, as established in academia through the centuries, the ability to use your work freely as long as it is staying in a shared, community *commons*.  Hence the work also of L. Lessig with the [[wiki:CreativeCommons|CreativeCommons]].
-
The above is what '''the law should be''' and I'll argue is the only defensible position.
+
The above is what '''the law should be''' and I'll argue is the only defensible position.  Every creative work depends, to some degree, on the prior art of others -- that is simply what generates '''culture''', the issue is preserving fair credit and making the proper [[Creative Economy]].

Revision as of 03:02, 19 September 2013

Despite RichardStallman's excellent efforts on rejecting IP, I contend that it is fundamentally necessary for the future.

Here are the things one needs to know about copyright:

  • Despite the term "copyright" it is not about preserving a right to copy, but the right to keep your name attached to your work. That is, no one can take your work and re-brand it under their name. Technically, no one can legally deprive you of your own liberty to "do what you want" for non-commercial and non-redistributive purposes.
  • Despite prior case law history, copyright and fair-use allow anyone to enjoy the work that has been published. The act of "publishing" (relating as it does to putting it to the public) has put the work in the public domain. You (the author) can't simultaneously wish to put it in the public domain (to earn money, for ex), and wish to limit its access to the public -- these are two contradictory aims and the law cannot be put in the middle. The market (and/or the creator's ingenuity at hiding or convoluting his work) is the only mechanism to resolve this (significant) issue. Pangaia and the CreativeCommons is made to resolve this issue.
  • Fair-use allows others to make use of your work in derivative exhibitions, as long as you preserve attribution and do not deprive the author of legitimate (financial) gains therefrom. Mainly this means, as established in academia through the centuries, the ability to use your work freely as long as it is staying in a shared, community *commons*. Hence the work also of L. Lessig with the CreativeCommons.

The above is what the law should be and I'll argue is the only defensible position. Every creative work depends, to some degree, on the prior art of others -- that is simply what generates culture, the issue is preserving fair credit and making the proper Creative Economy.

Personal tools