3 ms·

So employees could leak all of a company's code and competitors could freely use it? Being able to keep works private is a useful part of copyright.

TMWNN 1y ago
> So employees could leak all of a company's code and competitors could freely use it? How you get that from my proposal, I don't know. That said, I have no problem with source code being exempt from compulsory licensing.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >How you get that from my proposal, I don't know. Because your proposal is that once a copyrighted work is distributed it has to be made public or the owner loses the right to control its distribution. People make sensitive documents and distribute them to other people, but don't want to make them available to the public.
  - TMWNN 1y ago
    > Because your proposal is that once a copyrighted work is distributed it has to be made public or the owner loses the right to control its distribution No. I wrote >A film, TV show, sound recording, book, or any other copyrighted content must, once made available for public purchase (My emphasis)
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      >Any content, once published/distributed/broadcast in the US, that is not made readily available to the public going forward loses copyright protection. This includes revisions. But your post also gave this rule for any content.
      - TMWNN 1y ago
        Just stop. You overlooked something when reading my comment, so great was your desire to *ACKSHUALLY*, and now that you realize it, you prefer to make yourself look like you are unable to read with context and a smidge of common sense, so great is your desperation to not look "wrong". Just stop.
userbinator 1y ago
That falls under NDAs, which are different from copyright.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Yes, but NDA's only apply to the person who signed it. If a competitor got the code they wouldn't be the ones under the NDA.
LocalH 1y ago
Once they are released to the public, they are owned by the public, but on temporary lease to the copyright holder. Parent commenter only spoke to what should happen with works released to the public. Any copyright holder who has supported (or whose estate has benefited from) extensions on copyright terms has stolen from the public in a way that all pirates combined have never stolen from the copyright holders.

TMWNN 1y ago

> So employees could leak all of a company's code and competitors could freely use it? How you get that from my proposal, I don't know. That said, I have no problem with source code being exempt from compulsory licensing.

charcircuit 1y ago
>How you get that from my proposal, I don't know. Because your proposal is that once a copyrighted work is distributed it has to be made public or the owner loses the right to control its distribution. People make sensitive documents and distribute them to other people, but don't want to make them available to the public.
- TMWNN 1y ago
  > Because your proposal is that once a copyrighted work is distributed it has to be made public or the owner loses the right to control its distribution No. I wrote >A film, TV show, sound recording, book, or any other copyrighted content must, once made available for public purchase (My emphasis)
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    >Any content, once published/distributed/broadcast in the US, that is not made readily available to the public going forward loses copyright protection. This includes revisions. But your post also gave this rule for any content.
    - TMWNN 1y ago
      Just stop. You overlooked something when reading my comment, so great was your desire to *ACKSHUALLY*, and now that you realize it, you prefer to make yourself look like you are unable to read with context and a smidge of common sense, so great is your desperation to not look "wrong". Just stop.

userbinator 1y ago

That falls under NDAs, which are different from copyright.

charcircuit 1y ago
Yes, but NDA's only apply to the person who signed it. If a competitor got the code they wouldn't be the ones under the NDA.

LocalH 1y ago

Once they are released to the public, they are owned by the public, but on temporary lease to the copyright holder. Parent commenter only spoke to what should happen with works released to the public. Any copyright holder who has supported (or whose estate has benefited from) extensions on copyright terms has stolen from the public in a way that all pirates combined have never stolen from the copyright holders.