I would suggest that we don't know how that story ends, only how it progresses, and the collateral damage that it does. We don't know how to show or tell or even hint that there might be other ways - we can try, but history has shown that it is only experience that _might_ work.
It would be great to know how the story ends, how to jump to the last page - but we still don't know how long the book is. We haven't even approached the resolution (I believe). Hopefully we'll get to the end before the book falls to pieces.
So no matter what industry you might be in
The solution when you cannot compete
Is to sue or threaten or try to win
However you can; thinking takes a seat.
If competitors are showing you up
and you are too lazy to innovate,
stick your head in the sand, no way, nup,
it's illegal, it's not fair, don't tell us we're too late.
If piracy is killing you
just start treating fans like crooks,
It's what the lawyers say you must do!
Spend money on lawsuits, hang them on hooks!
Don't mind that there are ways to embrace
this funny digital infinite supply
ignore or dismiss case after case
and stoop to FUD, lobbying and the occasional lie.
Digital is not analog or physical
What it allows cannot be constrained
So much content - important and whimsical
The trick is to innovate and see what can be gained.
Probably a useful idea. I do like that they separate existing public domain and new public domain. Hopefully that doesn't add to the confusion, tho.
@Revi I think you've described why it is sad. Copyright was originally required to be registered to exist at all, rather than automatic. Needing to differentiate content by using a "Public Domain" (not under website copyright) mark, rather than a "Copyright" (is under website copyright) mark is the exact opposite of the original intention of Copyright law.
While it is of course necessary that people cannot simply write anything they like, this seems really weird.
What if someone writes about their annoyances or feelings or thoughts at home, and never shows it to anyone else?
Consider: A person writes down their feelings about someone else. This just happens to include language that could be considered "racially inflammatory written material". Does this mean that if someone else finds out about what was written down (they don't even have to see it), the person who wrote it down can be tried for "publishing racist information"?
Or someone could just accuse someone else of creating "racially inflammatory written material".
Based on this: "the offences of displaying, distributing or publishing racially inflammatory written material do not require proof that anybody actually read or heard the material", no proof is required that it exists, just that someone thought about "displaying, distributing or publishing" it?
The article's idea that you shouldn't worry about freeloaders, and just concentrate on the contributors (connect with fans and all that) is interesting. I'm not convinced one way or the other. I can certainly see the logic behind it, but I'm not sure it would work out in practice, especially with much smaller projects.
As a developer myself, I certainly appreciate simpler licences.
The concerns over large companies coming in and using the software for themselves may have some merit. Perhaps it's time to stop worrying about contributions back to the project, and just make sure that the credit goes where it's deserved? Recognition and reputation are after all separate (or should be) from copyright and legal concerns.
It is quite one-sided (for CSIRO). They don't seem to realise that even if the patent is valid, going after businesses that actually use it will harm innovation. I know CSIRO is a research facility and uses the money for more research, as the above commenter mentioned... this does seem like one case where the patent really does make sense.
Glad to hear that the clubs here know that there are alternatives. It'll probably be hard to play music that no one really knows, and not play the mainstream stuff.
Best of luck to the clubs. Any way to tell/show these crazy collection societies that they can't just do what they like.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
It would be great to know how the story ends, how to jump to the last page - but we still don't know how long the book is. We haven't even approached the resolution (I believe). Hopefully we'll get to the end before the book falls to pieces.
Tribute to Dark Helmet
The solution when you cannot compete
Is to sue or threaten or try to win
However you can; thinking takes a seat.
If competitors are showing you up
and you are too lazy to innovate,
stick your head in the sand, no way, nup,
it's illegal, it's not fair, don't tell us we're too late.
If piracy is killing you
just start treating fans like crooks,
It's what the lawyers say you must do!
Spend money on lawsuits, hang them on hooks!
Don't mind that there are ways to embrace
this funny digital infinite supply
ignore or dismiss case after case
and stoop to FUD, lobbying and the occasional lie.
Digital is not analog or physical
What it allows cannot be constrained
So much content - important and whimsical
The trick is to innovate and see what can be gained.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
"if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have any objection to being tracked/filmed/recorded/etc"
Now obviously the larger point is police doing their job properly. I would like to see some consistency, tho.
(untitled comment)
@Revi I think you've described why it is sad. Copyright was originally required to be registered to exist at all, rather than automatic. Needing to differentiate content by using a "Public Domain" (not under website copyright) mark, rather than a "Copyright" (is under website copyright) mark is the exact opposite of the original intention of Copyright law.
(untitled comment)
What if someone writes about their annoyances or feelings or thoughts at home, and never shows it to anyone else?
Consider: A person writes down their feelings about someone else. This just happens to include language that could be considered "racially inflammatory written material". Does this mean that if someone else finds out about what was written down (they don't even have to see it), the person who wrote it down can be tried for "publishing racist information"?
Or someone could just accuse someone else of creating "racially inflammatory written material".
Based on this: "the offences of displaying, distributing or publishing racially inflammatory written material do not require proof that anybody actually read or heard the material", no proof is required that it exists, just that someone thought about "displaying, distributing or publishing" it?
Interersting points all
As a developer myself, I certainly appreciate simpler licences.
The concerns over large companies coming in and using the software for themselves may have some merit. Perhaps it's time to stop worrying about contributions back to the project, and just make sure that the credit goes where it's deserved? Recognition and reputation are after all separate (or should be) from copyright and legal concerns.
ABC Catalyst has story on this
It is quite one-sided (for CSIRO). They don't seem to realise that even if the patent is valid, going after businesses that actually use it will harm innovation. I know CSIRO is a research facility and uses the money for more research, as the above commenter mentioned... this does seem like one case where the patent really does make sense.
Brilliant!
Best of luck to the clubs. Any way to tell/show these crazy collection societies that they can't just do what they like.
(untitled comment)
Certainly a good way to promote saving without explicitly promoting saving.
cofiem’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt