Copyright Explained Musically
from the copyright-does-inspire-some-creativity dept
For those of you who claim that copyright inspires no creativity whatsoever, perhaps you have not seen the following video, PandoHouse Rock: Copyright, explained, a collaboration between PandoDaily and Explainer Music's David Holmes:So, yes, copyright may have inspired this song... to be put into the public domain.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: complicated, copyright, fair use, music, public domain
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Interesting
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
Done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
A statement staying that for all tech dirt content, they don't give two hoots how you use or repurpose it, isn't enough for you?
You want maybe some kind of Gutenberg project style PD declaration at the start of every article?
You don't think that might perhaps just be an irritating distraction that wouldn't make people rather eat their own intestines than slog through time after pointless time?
Okay Mike you have your pointers bluray this mothering site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
Dedicating something to the public domain is incredibly simple and easy. For some reason, it's the anti-copyright folks like Mike and Kinsella who pretend like it's difficult. They're completely wrong.
In the post linked to by the AC above, Mike says: "we're perfectly fine with people taking and repurposing our content." That sounds like a grant of a nonexclusive license, not a dedication of the work to the public domain. If he wants to dedicate things to the public domain, the LAST thing he should do is publish articles like that where he grants a license and then says he sees no point dedicating things to the public domain explicitly. If anything, that article shows that things here are NOT in the public domain.
So what should he do? Mike mentions that CC licenses are no good because they rely on copyright. That's true. But CC0 is not a license. It's a tool: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 All he has to do is slap that on the end of an article, and boom, the article is thereafter unilaterally, unequivocally, and irrevocably dedicated to the public domain. It is literally that simple. It could not be easier.
Why doesn't Mike, who purports to want his articles to be in the public domain, not do so simple of a thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
It's not a tax, it's a penalty.
It's not a penalty, it's a tax.
It's not high, it's just not close to the ground.
We're not falling, we're just going down really quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
It's SO damn easy to put something in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
It's SO damn easy to put something in the public domain.
I don't know how it works in other jurisdictions, but that works in the U.S. No reason not to do it if his intent is to actually dedicate things to the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
LMAO! What other jurisdictions does Mike have copyrights in that he'd like to abandon? Give me a break. He very easily could dedicate his articles to the public domain, but he's clearly far too lazy to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
Every signatory to the Berne Convention, for starters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
Can you explain how that works? I would think that if he abandoned his rights in the U.S., the country of origin, then that would carry over to the signatory nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
In reality, his alter-ego Copyright Man (tm) is Chris Dodd's best friend and flies around the country with his x-ray vision looking into people's houses and tracking down evil copyright infringers and setting fire to them with his heat vision (his one point of dissagreement with Chris Dodd as it turns out, who thinks this is not severe or invasive enough).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
He links to an article where explains why he DOESN'T dedicate each article to the public domain, and you think that proves things are in the public domain? I don't follow your logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But please do not use the NC restriction!!
Summary: you *want* to restrict commercial use, so you use NC. Result: your decision has little or no impact on actual commercial uses, but you seriously hamper non-commercial users who you wanted to support. That's what happens with NC. It's a broken license, don't use it!
See my example here:
blog.wolftune.com/2011/07/brain-parts-song-video.html
Or thorough discussion:
http://blog.okfn.org/2013/01/08/consequences-risks-and-side-effects-of-the-license-modu le-non-commercial-use-only-2/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
free
obat penyubur kandungan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]