On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:37:20 +0100, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the presentation at Mashup Camp, Lawrence Lessig said that it makes > more sense as the law worked before, that you had to initiate a > copyright otherwise it was public domain. I agree with that, intent > is actively chosen not given by default.
Good idea in theory, terrible in practice. Automatic protection is IMO a very good thing about copyrights. Imagine a world where you had to register to get protection: Every time you wrote a blog entry you would have to fill out a form, print your blog entry in 3 copies, fill out a check for $20 and mail everything to the Copyright Office. Now *that* would stiffle creativity. It is easier to assume protection and have the author waive their rights. I also don't have to post a note on my furniture to retain my ownership rights - those are also automatic (the way I want them to be, even if I do live in a replica of the IKEA catalogue). > Right now any work that > someone would want to reuse, they would have to contact all associated > parties whether they intended it to be public domain or not. It's an > unnecessary burden on artistic development. This is why you have Creative Commons. Don't tell me that writing "This work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution License" to be a burden. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
