On the woes of copyright.
#Copyright #Bookmarks
On copyright being the wrong solution:
Markets use prices to distribute resources, and prices are set by supply and demand, and that started breaking down in the cassette and floppy disk age where making the initial recording was very expensive but making copiesnof that was cheap. Big capital has tried to patch the hole to their advantage at the expense of the public by introducing artificial scarcity in the form of an exclusive right to make copies, “copyright”. – Sympathy for the Copyright Devil, by @Sandra@idiomdrottning.org
In a pay-if-forward style situation, if Alice makes one sock and gives copies of it to one thousand people, they can each give a thousand others one mitten each. Both sides have been amplified by the life-changing magic of copying, and there’d be one million mittens on Earth. You’re welcome.♥ … there are areas where there are scarcity, which we need to carefully manage (or systematically manage), and there are areas where there isn’t scarcity and it’s evil to create and impose it. – Economics of Mittens & Socks, by @Sandra@idiomdrottning.org
Sympathy for the Copyright Devil
On web scraping:
The idea behind this legal theory is that web scraping—often high-volume, unwanted data requests—are a form of trespass on private tangible property—computer servers. – Web scraping for me and for thee, by Kieran McCarthy, for Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Web scraping for me and for thee, by Kieran McCarthy, for Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Nice summary of what to watch out for when companies do free software:
One of the durable long-term strategies for software businesses in the era of open source was perfected by SugarCRM about a decade ago. I’ve described it as the rights ratchet model. – The Rights-Ratchet Model
The main problem with a copyright-assigning agreement is not it giving the right to the aggregator to relicense the work (although that is a problem as it enables the end game of a rights ratchet). The main problem is it allows the aggregator, uniquely in the community, to ignore the license altogether. – Legally Ignoring The License
First public domain dedication, according to @gutenberg_org@mastodon.social:
In March 1907. The Diamond Sūtra, a woodblock printed Buddhist scripture dated AD 868, is discovered by Aurel Stein at the Mogao Caves near Dunhuang in China. It is said to be "the earliest complete survival of a dated printed book".
Wikipedia:
It is also the first known creative work with an explicit public domain dedication, as its colophon at the end states that it was created "for universal free distribution". – Diamond Sutra
The article quotes the colophon:
Reverently made for universal free distribution by Wang Jie on behalf of his two parents on the 15th of the 4th moon of the 9th year of Xiantong [11 May 868].
To drive lawyers nuts:
I propose that new projects choose a license from what I call the "Poison Pill" class. These are licenses that are so nonsensical that any entity with an actual legal department won't use them out of terror; however, normal, every day people have no such strict adherence to legalese and can enjoy them as the art they are in themselves. Below, I've included 40 such licenses… – Licenses, a list by @acdw@tilde.zone and friends
@cvennevik@hachyderm.io liked this one:
May it guide us on our journey, like a compass in the hands of a seasoned sailor, and may our code forever be free.
@glitchf@octodon.social proposed:
My absolute favorite of these is the Pirate's License which goes something like this: "Use and distribution of this software is prohibited for any purpose."
@GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social writes:
If you want to know where tech companies are with AI safety, know Microsoft Recall won’t record screenshots of DRM’d movies..
..but will record screenshots of your financial records and WhatsApp messages, as corporate interests were prioritised over user safety.
And it’s enabled by default.
Open Access und Creative Commons:
Freie Lizenzen und Open Access bedeuten nicht automatisch einen Verzicht auf Vergütungsansprüche. … Wer aber sichergehen will, dass es keinerlei Konflikte zwischen dem Wahrnehmungsvertrag und der Open-Access-Lizenz gibt, sollte von der Möglichkeit in § 13 Abs. 2 Gebrauch machen: Dort können Autor*innen einzelne Rechte und Ansprüche aus der Liste in § 1 von der treuhänderischen Wahrnehmung durch die VG Wort ausnehmen. – Kein Widerspruch: Open Access und Vergütung durch die VG Wort, von Felix Reda, für iRights.info
Kein Widerspruch: Open Access und Vergütung durch die VG Wort
Automated copyright enforcement encourages automated copyright fraud. @rrrrroseazerty@cathode.church wrote the following:
If I write this, it’s because I’m a free licensed music composer under Public Domain Creative Commons 0 license and I’m experiencing a lot of Content ID and Audible Magic claims. And if you have to read this to get your free stuff get free again, I’m sorry and I hope you’ll find an answer here. – How to contest a Content ID claim from a - free licensed - song you’ve made
How to contest a Content ID claim from a - free licensed - song you’ve made
DMCA 1201 summarized:
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the 1998 law that makes it a felony to help someone change how their own computer works so it serves them, rather than a distant corporation. Under DMCA 1201, giving someone a tool to "bypass an access control for a copyrighted work" is a felony punishable by a 5-year prison sentence and a $500k fine – for a first offense. … As you might expect, this is quite a tempting proposition for any manufacturer hoping to enshittify their products, because they know you can't legally disenshittify them. These access controls have metastasized into every kind of device imaginable. – The US Copyright Office frees the McFlurry, by Cory Doctorow (@pluralistic@mamot.fr)