I used to be a big fan of the NC, until I realized that I was only using it to prevent other people from making money from something I did. And then I realized that that made me just as bad as all the other culture cops out there, and since I didn't care if people copied my stuff, why should I care if they profit off of it? Ultimately, what I wanted was the credit for the parent work, and as long as there's a CC-BY, I'm still good.
I still do SA, though, as a matter of principal.
That being said, I think that NC and ND are good things to have to promote openness in otherwise gated content. I think if CC did away with these clauses, they would get fewer new adopters. The better solution is to keep these clauses around to encourage growth, but to educate people (as I was educated) that while it might be comforting to have the NC/ND clauses, they should only be used as a gateway to better access to content.
Also, if the CC got rid of NC, Cory Doctorow's new books wouldn't be released under CC-4.0 licenses due to an agreement he has with his publisher.
Maybe Google is just trying to bring awareness to the ridiculousity of patent laws and how they only manage to harm the general public and stifle innovation, and is doing this by targeting the squeakiest wheel on the block, Apple users.
I just hope that someone will appreciate the irony.
I was under the impression that gov contract software was a "work for hire", and as such, was a funny little legal loophole that lets the gov have copyrights on software.
Di Filippo's regular column in FSF is called "Plumage from Pegasus" in which he satirizes "current events" with a somewhat humorous sci-fi twist. This particular article's title is "What Immortal Hand or Eye Could Frame Thy Dreadful Copyright?".
Also, in a 1953 issue of the same magazine, Donald F. Reines contributed his satire "The Shape of Copyright to Come" (sometimes called "Interplanetary Copyright"). It was originally published in the Information Bulletin of the Library of Congress that year, but I can't seem to find a link. It's well worth reading copyright satire if you can get your eyes on it.
While I'm not a lawyer, I believe the answer is yes to both of those questions. You can dedicate your works to the public domain prior to the 70 years after your death (take at look at the Creative Commons licenses CC0 or Founders Copyright for two such examples).
Likewise, in the US if you have assigned your copyright to another entity, you can reclaim it after (I think) 30 years. The ultimate question though is: does the publisher actually hold the copyright to the work, or have you just exclusively licensed that work for them to publish?
Re: Re: Re: Re: This allows them to 'remix' the past and resell it.... who wouldn't want that?
FWIW,
According to Wikipedia, the top 10 grossing films in 2011 were as follows:
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (second part, sequel, based on a book)
2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon (sequel, based on toy line, etc.)
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (sequel, based on amusement park ride and unrelated pirate book)
4. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 (sequel, based on book)
5. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (sequel, based on television series)
6. Kung Fu Panda 2 (sequel)
7. Fast Five (sequel)
8. The Hangover Part II (sequel)
9. The Smurfs (based on television series, comic)
10. Cars 2 (sequel)
I'm wondering how many films released lately are actually original...
This would be like if I sued Joss Whedon for his film "The Cabin in the Woods" because it, like my 2010 novel "In a Cabin, in the Woods" features an isolated cabin in the woods and sleeping elder gods awakening.
(Of course, this completely ignores the fact that, according to Wikipedia, the filming was complete in 2009, but had some release delays due to bankruptcy. However, since I had never heard of this film until after I wrote my novel, I'm sure I'd have a case...)
On the post: Partisan Piracy: Conservative Filmmakers Accuse Obama Supporters Of Uploading Their Film To Youtube
it's not about informed votards. it's about making money.
duh.
where have you been for the past 200+ years?
/pseudotroll
On the post: When Captain Picard Loses Patience With Your Cable Service, You Need To Run A Tighter Ship
...
Oh, yeah. Nm.
On the post: Dead Authors' Estates Preventing Even The Slightest Revisions To Works
He's dead.
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Hello, viking funeral...
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Launches Ad Campaign For Son Of SOPA
Silver Bullet for Protecting Intellectual Property:
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Re:
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
I still do SA, though, as a matter of principal.
That being said, I think that NC and ND are good things to have to promote openness in otherwise gated content. I think if CC did away with these clauses, they would get fewer new adopters. The better solution is to keep these clauses around to encourage growth, but to educate people (as I was educated) that while it might be comforting to have the NC/ND clauses, they should only be used as a gateway to better access to content.
Also, if the CC got rid of NC, Cory Doctorow's new books wouldn't be released under CC-4.0 licenses due to an agreement he has with his publisher.
On the post: DEA Gets Lawsuit Dismissed Because It Couldn't Cope With Two Terabytes Of Evidence
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
I just hope that someone will appreciate the irony.
On the post: Where Fan Fiction Stands On Copyright: A Legal Primer
Re: Copyright
On the post: Monster Fight: Can You Tell An Energy Drink From An Aquarium?
On the post: Should Software Created By The Federal Gov't Be Open Source Licensed... Or Public Domain?
Re: Contractor-developed gov't SW
On the post: Copyright Sci-Fi: What Will Lifelong Copyright Terms Mean When People Live Way Longer?
Re: NOW I see the point of ACTA....
On the post: Copyright Sci-Fi: What Will Lifelong Copyright Terms Mean When People Live Way Longer?
Some Notes:
Also, in a 1953 issue of the same magazine, Donald F. Reines contributed his satire "The Shape of Copyright to Come" (sometimes called "Interplanetary Copyright"). It was originally published in the Information Bulletin of the Library of Congress that year, but I can't seem to find a link. It's well worth reading copyright satire if you can get your eyes on it.
On the post: Copyright Sci-Fi: What Will Lifelong Copyright Terms Mean When People Live Way Longer?
Re: Copyright other than life limit
Likewise, in the US if you have assigned your copyright to another entity, you can reclaim it after (I think) 30 years. The ultimate question though is: does the publisher actually hold the copyright to the work, or have you just exclusively licensed that work for them to publish?
On the post: Copyright Extension: A Way To Protect Hollywood From Having To Compete With The Past
Re: Re: Re: Re: This allows them to 'remix' the past and resell it.... who wouldn't want that?
According to Wikipedia, the top 10 grossing films in 2011 were as follows:
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (second part, sequel, based on a book)
2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon (sequel, based on toy line, etc.)
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (sequel, based on amusement park ride and unrelated pirate book)
4. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 (sequel, based on book)
5. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (sequel, based on television series)
6. Kung Fu Panda 2 (sequel)
7. Fast Five (sequel)
8. The Hangover Part II (sequel)
9. The Smurfs (based on television series, comic)
10. Cars 2 (sequel)
I'm wondering how many films released lately are actually original...
On the post: Copyright Extension: A Way To Protect Hollywood From Having To Compete With The Past
On the post: Wyden To Obama: Hollywood Shouldn't Know More About TPP Than Congress
Just like with technology laws.
On the post: Author Discovers Assassin's Creed Uses Same Cliche'd SciFi Trope As His Book... Sues For Infringement
(Of course, this completely ignores the fact that, according to Wikipedia, the filming was complete in 2009, but had some release delays due to bankruptcy. However, since I had never heard of this film until after I wrote my novel, I'm sure I'd have a case...)
On the post: Author Discovers Assassin's Creed Uses Same Cliche'd SciFi Trope As His Book... Sues For Infringement
Re: Uh.. DUNE
Since (a) ideas are property, (b) property is inherited, and (c) Genetic Memory exists, Beiswenger clearly has a case here.
Next >>