4 ms·
Yes, it is good to point out insensitive/mistaken/hypocritical companies. But there is something that can get lost in these cases. Everyone is provoked to a be
by hxa7241 16y ago
Yes, it is good to point out insensitive/mistaken/hypocritical companies. But there is something that can get lost in these cases.
Everyone is provoked to a belligerent counter-attack: demand restitution! lawyer-up! sue! But this only consolidates the underlying problem. It is just the wrongness of the system popping up in a different place. The way forward is less restrictions, less legal action, not more aggressive enforcement for everyone.
If someone plagiarises something, and then excuses themself with a pack of bumptious squirmy nonsense, they can be ridiculed. But generally we all ought to be copying stuff pretty freely.
- bigiain 16y agoYou don't consider the offer to "make good" by donating $130 to the school of journalism to be a perfectly good first option before "belligerent counter-attack"? Griggs was an idiot - but thats OK, there's no law against being an idiot. There _is_ a copyright law though. Griggs was offered a simple and inexpensive way to to fix the crime she committed out of her idiocy, and she chose to not take up that offer. What else should the copyright owner in a case like this do except get belligerent?
- tbrownaw 16y ago> But generally we all ought to be copying stuff pretty freely. Which we can't do under the current laws, regardless of whether we ignore people who don't understand those laws. What's the best way to get the laws fixed?
- techiferous 16y agoRegardless of copyright philosophy, it's more about honoring the expectations of each party in the business transaction. The agreement was that they could publish the article once but not republish. Regardless of the law, breaching that mutually-agreed expectation was bound to cause problems.