Thanks, that's useful. I'll try, though fail, to keep those
straight.
I confess though that the practical matter of how to talk in court
doesn't seem that relevant to me to the discussion we were having. I
see the social ("philosophical") issues as fundamental and the law as
a heap of crude accidents. It doesn't change a thing for my own
objections (to the idea that the AG should try to stop machine
readings) whether this is called by lawyers an exercise in copyright
or licensing. I just think it's wrong because part of a creeping
attempt to ever increase the power of -- I guess -- licensing; and
part of the endless effort to hammer the market into, and hence
commercialize, every inch and hour of our lives; and also conceptually
incoherent because one cannot describe the difference between
infringing from non-infringing algorithms in any other terms than
something like, infringing means I'm not getting paid.
cd
On Apr 10, 11:24 am, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:17 am, delancey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a difference between "rights licensing" and "copyright
> > licensing"?
>
> Yes, they are two totally different and unrelated terms.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
