3 ms·

I'm not entirely convinced of this. I totally believe in open access, but putting papers in the public domain would mean that people could lift content and pass

by lutorm 17y ago

I'm not entirely convinced of this. I totally believe in open access, but putting papers in the public domain would mean that people could lift content and pass it off as theirs, which I think should not be allowed. (It would still be unethical, of course, but I'm not sure that is a big deterrent for some individuals.) Maybe the standard should be to license papers under something like the Creative Commons Attribution license.

wmf 17y ago
Who has used copyright law to punish plagiarism? This "feature" isn't worth preserving if no one uses it.
- pbhj 17y ago
  I use CC licenses, usually BY-NC-SA. I don't actively enforce it but I feel I have a right to be named and to have a cut of the money if others are making money directly from my work without otherwise requesting permission. Copyright enables this: I have the right to label the work as mine, I have the right to license it as I see fit. If you plagiarise my work (not worth it!) I don't have the funds to chase you, if I did I would and I feel the law should give me that option. If you credit me and share any derivative works then I'm happy for you to use it, unless you've maliciously amended it and are crediting me - then copyright gives me remedies. Copyright terms stink like pig shit. Copyright is not all bad.
pbhj 17y ago
At last someone else who realises that copyright is not just about financial considerations but includes the moral rights too. Without copyright licenses like GPL won't work as the license is no longer more liberal than the status quo but instead is attempting to add restrictions. Without copyright you have no right to be named as an author of a work; you have no way (outside libel law) to prevent a spiteful sod from modifying your work to discredit you. FWIW those who receive funding from taxation, IMO, should be required to release the results under a BY-SA style license.

by lutorm 17y ago

wmf 17y ago

Who has used copyright law to punish plagiarism? This "feature" isn't worth preserving if no one uses it.

pbhj 17y ago
I use CC licenses, usually BY-NC-SA. I don't actively enforce it but I feel I have a right to be named and to have a cut of the money if others are making money directly from my work without otherwise requesting permission. Copyright enables this: I have the right to label the work as mine, I have the right to license it as I see fit. If you plagiarise my work (not worth it!) I don't have the funds to chase you, if I did I would and I feel the law should give me that option. If you credit me and share any derivative works then I'm happy for you to use it, unless you've maliciously amended it and are crediting me - then copyright gives me remedies. Copyright terms stink like pig shit. Copyright is not all bad.

pbhj 17y ago

At last someone else who realises that copyright is not just about financial considerations but includes the moral rights too. Without copyright licenses like GPL won't work as the license is no longer more liberal than the status quo but instead is attempting to add restrictions. Without copyright you have no right to be named as an author of a work; you have no way (outside libel law) to prevent a spiteful sod from modifying your work to discredit you. FWIW those who receive funding from taxation, IMO, should be required to release the results under a BY-SA style license.