[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Brian McNeil]

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 21:51 +0200, Reinier Bakels wrote:
> > 2009/10/23 Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>:

<snip>

> >> Well, somehow it is reasonable. But
> >> often it is very unreasonable. If you believe that present copyright is 
> >> OK,
> >
> > I believe no such thing> My position is that non-commercial copying
> > should be legal, and the term of copyright should be shortened. This
> > is mainstream PP thinking.

I think you can get to the point that most people who would take the
time to participate on this list hold the opinion that current
copyright, and much of the implications of it, are wrong.

> >> I don't understand why you are so upset from by ideas about journalists.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean.
> It was someone else on this list. I talk to the list. Someone said that 
> copyright is the only protection for journalists (or simular words). Anyway, 
> the problems are very different for journalists. They would not mind for a 
> five year copyright: a five year old news item is no longer a news item. And 
> noncommercial filesharing is not an item for text, afaik.

Here you might have a point, and it was me took you to task on that.

Your idea seemed ill-conceived and born in isolation from the realities
of the modern world. I think current copyright terms are disgusting, and
one of the links I posted previously is to an in-depth interview with
people from the EFF and ORG *on copyright* and fighting further
extensions of terms.

> Still it is useful for imagination to be aware that legally there is no 
> difference between music and text. Every web page (beyond a very basic level 
> of originality) is by law protected by copyright. No, you are not a criminal 
> if you browse the web: there is something called an implied licence. But 
> then again: why not assume an implied licence for music?
> The answer: the *greed* of SONY, EMI and a handful of other media 
> conclomerates.

You're not providing a compelling argument for the abolition of
copyright by waving these hot-button names about. Or were you putting
some other case? I really could not work that out.

Copyright is a double-edged sword; perhaps most elegantly demonstrated
by the GPL and GFDL licenses. An aspiring artist, musician if you wish
to focus there, can use Creative Commons licenses to protect their work
from these big "evil" conglomerates.

But I just can't see them ripping off stuff friends and I have done[1].



[1] http://www.archive.org/details/TheCreditCrunchBlues_108


-- 
Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091023/2430e58d/attachment.pgp>