4 ms·

Your mention of Wikipedia is a red herring since the idea there is the content is user generated and donated by the creator with a CC license. Things that are f

by bugsy 16y ago

Your mention of Wikipedia is a red herring since the idea there is the content is user generated and donated by the creator with a CC license. Things that are found to have been copy-pasted are removed. JSTOR sells content so that's also a red herring. Google Books is relevant. Their business model is based on not only stealing, but selling without permission content they don't own. This is criminal and unethical. edit: downvoters please state your case. Is it that you agree that corporations should be able to steal content from those of us who actually create things, as Google is doing with Google Books?

Alex3917 16y ago
"Your mention of Wikipedia is a red herring since the idea there is the content is user generated and donated by the creator with a CC license." That's simply false. There is tons of public domain content in Wikipedia, for example the entire 13th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was used as the starting point for many of the original articles. And the only reason why there isn't more public domain content like this incorporated is because there isn't any more public domain content; everything after 1926 is under copyright.
- bugsy 16y ago
  You are right there is public domain content. This is public domain and is not even a point of contention. The only possible issue here is the non-public domain content, so that is what I mentioned. That is contributed under a CC license and that which is not is removed. So it is a red herring. There isn't a problem with Wikipedia. If you believe the public domain content represents some IP controversy, it is up to you to establish that. I have never seen that argument presented so it's up to you to establish what it is.
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    "The only possible issue here is the non-public domain content, so that is what I mentioned." The point is that if copyright were 14 + 14 years instead of life plus 70 years, then everything published before 1997 or 1983 would be public domain, instead of only content published before 1926. This means that there would be exponentially more public domain material that could be added to Wikipedia, so not only is copyright term not a red herring, it's basically the central issue.
    - bugsy 16y ago
      Isn't wikipedia supposed to be user created? That's different from the "pillage and plunder" model you are promoting in your response.
      - Natsu 16y ago
        I don't understand why you feel that using public domain materials is a "pillage and plunder" model, nor why we couldn't abandon life+70 and return to the 14+14 year term endorsed by the Founding Fathers. I realize that we went to life+70 in order that the artists' children might be supported all their life. I do not understand why a fixed term of similar length applies to corporately owned works, nor why artists' children are somehow more privileged than any others. I do not pay my teacher's children all my life, though I owe my teachers far more for the ideas they passed to me. Nor do I pay the plumber's children for every flush, however grateful I might be for benefiting from their work. Even if state enforced rent may has a place, but current practice has abandoned the original purpose of promoting the progress of science and useful arts and become distorted into a form of economic protectionism where dollars are more important than innovation. But at least Sony's kids will be taken care of, right?
        bugsy 16y ago
        OK, you are not debating honestly, you are playing games.
        Natsu 16y ago
        I'm truly worried about the progress of science and useful arts. I don't give a damn about money in and of itself. Accordingly, I release what software I can as FOSS and have put other works into the public domain. In one case, I assigned the copyright on something I wrote to a university so that they could use it in one of their classes, for free, of course. If this is all a game, I'm doing my best to play it so that everyone wins.
      - pyre 16y ago
        Based on that assessment, all of Einstein's theories were created using the 'pillage and plunder' method since he didn't invent the mathematics and/or physics that he based his work on. Please don't try to 'smear' the public domain just because you have a twisted view of the way that IP law should work.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    His point is that current IP laws prevent anything from entering the public domain, so that they can become equally useful someday.
    - bugsy 16y ago
      Except it is not true that "current IP laws prevent anything from entering the public domain".
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law Every time copyright is about to run out on Mickey Mouse, they extend the length of copyright. So far, it's gone from 14 years to 70 years plus the lifetime of the creator. It is obscene.
        bugsy 16y ago
        Sure, there is a good argument to be made that 70 years plus life is extensive. However, anyone who wants to place their content into the public domain is free to do so. I have done so myself many times. And those who do not wish to do so, that is their right as well. What I would like to see in reform is moral rights of creators respected like they do in many other countries.
        bediger 16y ago
        Please elucidate. Post some URLs that give step-by-step instructions for "placing content into the public domain". Show some examples. I've heard tell that it's almost impossible to currently, in the US, place anything in the public domain, so I'd love, love, love to see the process to do so. I'd do it myself for some software I've written.
        bugsy 16y ago
        I hereby release the following original story into the public domain: Once upon a time five philosophers came for dinner to eat fish. But there was no fish, or utensils to eat the fish. This was a sad day for the five philosophers. A servant boy was sent to buy five fine bowls of spaghetti and five plastic forks. The servant boy quickly succeeded at his mission, returned, and set the table for the five philosophers. They sat down and were about to start eating when one of the philosophers said, "Stop, no one touch a thing. This is a trap."
nostrademons 16y ago
"Their business model is based on not only stealing, but selling without permission content they don't own. This is criminal and unethical." Technically, even if what you were saying were true, it would be civil and not criminal. IP is part of civil law, not criminal law.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  As well as civil copyright law, the US has criminal laws with penalties up to five years in prison (and doubled for repeated offenses). http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/18usc2319.htm http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/18usc2319.htm I don't believe there's anything like this for patent or trademark infringement, though.

by bugsy 16y ago

Alex3917 16y ago

"Your mention of Wikipedia is a red herring since the idea there is the content is user generated and donated by the creator with a CC license." That's simply false. There is tons of public domain content in Wikipedia, for example the entire 13th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was used as the starting point for many of the original articles. And the only reason why there isn't more public domain content like this incorporated is because there isn't any more public domain content; everything after 1926 is under copyright.

bugsy 16y ago
You are right there is public domain content. This is public domain and is not even a point of contention. The only possible issue here is the non-public domain content, so that is what I mentioned. That is contributed under a CC license and that which is not is removed. So it is a red herring. There isn't a problem with Wikipedia. If you believe the public domain content represents some IP controversy, it is up to you to establish that. I have never seen that argument presented so it's up to you to establish what it is.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "The only possible issue here is the non-public domain content, so that is what I mentioned." The point is that if copyright were 14 + 14 years instead of life plus 70 years, then everything published before 1997 or 1983 would be public domain, instead of only content published before 1926. This means that there would be exponentially more public domain material that could be added to Wikipedia, so not only is copyright term not a red herring, it's basically the central issue.
  - bugsy 16y ago
    Isn't wikipedia supposed to be user created? That's different from the "pillage and plunder" model you are promoting in your response.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      I don't understand why you feel that using public domain materials is a "pillage and plunder" model, nor why we couldn't abandon life+70 and return to the 14+14 year term endorsed by the Founding Fathers. I realize that we went to life+70 in order that the artists' children might be supported all their life. I do not understand why a fixed term of similar length applies to corporately owned works, nor why artists' children are somehow more privileged than any others. I do not pay my teacher's children all my life, though I owe my teachers far more for the ideas they passed to me. Nor do I pay the plumber's children for every flush, however grateful I might be for benefiting from their work. Even if state enforced rent may has a place, but current practice has abandoned the original purpose of promoting the progress of science and useful arts and become distorted into a form of economic protectionism where dollars are more important than innovation. But at least Sony's kids will be taken care of, right?
      - bugsy 16y ago
        OK, you are not debating honestly, you are playing games.
        Natsu 16y ago
        I'm truly worried about the progress of science and useful arts. I don't give a damn about money in and of itself. Accordingly, I release what software I can as FOSS and have put other works into the public domain. In one case, I assigned the copyright on something I wrote to a university so that they could use it in one of their classes, for free, of course. If this is all a game, I'm doing my best to play it so that everyone wins.
    - pyre 16y ago
      Based on that assessment, all of Einstein's theories were created using the 'pillage and plunder' method since he didn't invent the mathematics and/or physics that he based his work on. Please don't try to 'smear' the public domain just because you have a twisted view of the way that IP law should work.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  His point is that current IP laws prevent anything from entering the public domain, so that they can become equally useful someday.
  - bugsy 16y ago
    Except it is not true that "current IP laws prevent anything from entering the public domain".
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law Every time copyright is about to run out on Mickey Mouse, they extend the length of copyright. So far, it's gone from 14 years to 70 years plus the lifetime of the creator. It is obscene.
      - bugsy 16y ago
        Sure, there is a good argument to be made that 70 years plus life is extensive. However, anyone who wants to place their content into the public domain is free to do so. I have done so myself many times. And those who do not wish to do so, that is their right as well. What I would like to see in reform is moral rights of creators respected like they do in many other countries.
        bediger 16y ago
        Please elucidate. Post some URLs that give step-by-step instructions for "placing content into the public domain". Show some examples. I've heard tell that it's almost impossible to currently, in the US, place anything in the public domain, so I'd love, love, love to see the process to do so. I'd do it myself for some software I've written.
        bugsy 16y ago
        I hereby release the following original story into the public domain: Once upon a time five philosophers came for dinner to eat fish. But there was no fish, or utensils to eat the fish. This was a sad day for the five philosophers. A servant boy was sent to buy five fine bowls of spaghetti and five plastic forks. The servant boy quickly succeeded at his mission, returned, and set the table for the five philosophers. They sat down and were about to start eating when one of the philosophers said, "Stop, no one touch a thing. This is a trap."

nostrademons 16y ago

"Their business model is based on not only stealing, but selling without permission content they don't own. This is criminal and unethical." Technically, even if what you were saying were true, it would be civil and not criminal. IP is part of civil law, not criminal law.

prodigal_erik 16y ago
As well as civil copyright law, the US has criminal laws with penalties up to five years in prison (and doubled for repeated offenses). http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/18usc2319.htm http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/18usc2319.htm I don't believe there's anything like this for patent or trademark infringement, though.