Imagine that I make a version of Bob Dylan's song All Along the Watchtower, I don't recognise it's a versión of a Dylan's song and I make a non-commercial use of this version. Then Jimi Hendrix listens to my version and he includes it in one of his albums (and earns some money). Who's gonna pay Dylan?<br>
<br>I think it's a right some of us would like to recognise, and some wouldn't, I just said "most" to include everyone :)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rick@piratpartiet.se">rick@piratpartiet.se</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">Félix Robles wrote:<br>
> Well, I was thinking that if you modify a work, you should recognise<br>
> that it's based on that author's work.<br>
</div>While I agree, is this legislation _necessary_ in order to make this<br>
happen in noncommercial uses of creative material? Is it really<br>
necessary to extend copyright (back) into the noncommercial field in<br>
order to stifle plagiarism?<br>
<br>
Because in my experience, the collective net is quite ruthless against<br>
plagiarism. It is pretty much one of the worst social offenses you can<br>
commit.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>