Conversation:
Notices
-
laurelrusswurm (laurelrusswurm)'s status on Wednesday, 10-Oct-2012 22:07:03 EDT 
laurelrusswurm
Owning A Copy Does Not Confer !Copyright http://ur1.ca/ain9y #McCord !CreativeCommons #copyfraud !Canada #WilliamLyonMackenzieKing !CDNpoli -
dper (dper)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 01:19:37 EDT 
dper
A side question: Suppose I make a CC-BY work and it incorporates PD stuff. How much should I worry about attribution for the PD pieces? -
dper (dper)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 01:22:09 EDT
dper
Specifically, I make worksheets for use in school, and PD images (w/o attribution) are the quickest to add. (Legality not in question here.) -
jxself (jxself)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 01:33:58 EDT 
jxself
@dper Pointing to http://ur1.ca/aio4r which has a section on attribution and public domain from a US-centric view. -
laurelrusswurm (laurelrusswurm)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 02:50:25 EDT
laurelrusswurm
@dper That is the point of the public doman; the work can be remixed for any reason at all, an attribution is never required ... -
laurelrusswurm (laurelrusswurm)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 02:52:20 EDT
laurelrusswurm
@dper (though misattribution is fraud) My feeling is all public domain work ought to be attributed with as much info as possible -
dper (dper)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 02:53:51 EDT
dper
@laurelrusswurm Yes. Unfortunately, sometimes that is irritating for downstream remixers, because they cannot see what came from where. :-/ -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 02:55:31 EDT 
marjoleink
@laurelrusswurm there is no way public domain _could_ be attributes because it no longer belongs to anyone -
laurelrusswurm (laurelrusswurm)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 03:08:02 EDT
laurelrusswurm
@marjoleink most !CC licenses require attribution, while !PublicDomain does not. I think its better to attribute any art, PD or not. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 03:11:30 EDT
marjoleink
@laurelrusswurm public domain means no on owns it any more, no one owns any rights, so attribution is logically impossible -
zotz (zotz)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 09:34:40 EDT 
zotz
bogus thinking, attribution can as easily credit maker as owner. knowledge of who made thing does not automatically go away on PD status. -
arnebab (arnebab)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 10:01:23 EDT 
arnebab
legally, if you add anything to PD, you can slap © on it. Otherwise you won’t have anything you can slap © on, because it’s just PD. -
laurelrusswurm (laurelrusswurm)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 10:33:05 EDT
laurelrusswurm
@marjoleink How is it illogical? It is absolutely possible for me to attribute the Mona Lisa to Leonardo da Vinci. -
laurelrusswurm (laurelrusswurm)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 10:40:43 EDT
laurelrusswurm
@marjoleink The !PublicDomain existed before the !copyright monopoly. It's why Shakespeare could remix cultural heritage into original work. -
laurelrusswurm (laurelrusswurm)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 10:57:43 EDT
laurelrusswurm
@zotz In my experience, that sleight of hand is often an effect of !copyright where the sponsor extorts attribution right as part of deal -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 12:57:35 EDT 
laroquod
@marjoleink You have allowed the legal system to capture and own your ethics. Attribution has *nothing* to do with copyright whatsoever. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 13:01:13 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink For example, when Michael Jackson bought copyright to all Beatles songs, it would not have been correct to attribute them to him -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 13:02:28 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink The two concepts are entirely distinct and I find it a sad commentary on modern society that you think attribution can be bought -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 13:06:50 EDT
marjoleink
what on earth makes you think that I think 'attribution can be bought'??? I have neither said nor implied anything of the sort. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 13:08:26 EDT
marjoleink
I also did not make 'a commentary on modern society'. I DID make a comment on terminology. There's a difference between the two. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 13:09:33 EDT
marjoleink
wrong. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 13:17:45 EDT
marjoleink
'copyright' is nothing but the right of the *creator* to determine what can be done with copies of their work. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 13:18:55 EDT
marjoleink
...or to place their work in the public domain. It should not even be possible to sell that right. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:31:10 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink Well you do not debate like an honest person: you just ignore whatever points others make that are inconvenient for you. -
johnnynull (johnnynull)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:32:43 EDT 
johnnynull
@laroquod Bingo. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:33:56 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod while you seem to ignore what I said and refer only to what I did not say :p -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:34:33 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod I guess you seem as dishonest to me as I seem to you! -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:36:24 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod not to mention, all of your comments on things I did not say seem to be totally beside the point. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:36:42 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink You are just plain lying about what you said before. You refuse to follow basic logical consequences of your position. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:36:52 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod You're apparently not debating with me but with an entirely imaginary person. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:37:26 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink If attribution comes from copyright, well copyright can be bought. But you obtusely refuse to put two + two together. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:37:58 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink Same goes for monopoly. Only you have the right to distribute your files in the whole world but that is not monopoly? -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:38:12 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink Connect. The. Dots. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:40:18 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod congratulations! You're the very first person to even imply that I an 'obtuse'. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:42:05 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod NOT true. I have the right to *determine* who gets to distribute my files (or distribute them at all). -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:43:08 EDT
marjoleink
Also, when I die, ALL my work will pass into the public domain, because I say so. No 50-year, 70-year or 100-year period in force. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:44:05 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink How is 'determine' less of a monopoly than 'distribute'? Not logical. Try again. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:44:22 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod admittedly, I *will* need a lawyer to draft that part of my testament because it's not automatic even here... -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:44:59 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink In my opinion yes you are being intentionally obtuse in order to protect what you perceive as your interests. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:45:15 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod though the period is not as ridiculously long here as it is in the USA and as the USA is trying to impose on others. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:46:53 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod I determine that others CAN distribute -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:47:19 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod and since it applies only to *my* work it is not remotely a 'monopoly' -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:48:22 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod you have a right to your short-sighted opinions -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:49:29 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod but I have never been obtuse, let alone 'intentionally' so, nor will I ever be if I can avoid Alzheimer's -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:50:51 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink There is no 'but it's my work' exception to monopoly. If you're the only one with the right to OK sales, it's a monopoly. Simple -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:53:16 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod there is author's right (in THIS country at least) which gives me the right to determine anyone can copy a work of ine -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:55:11 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod it's not as though I dominate ANY market http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:56:46 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod 'monopoly' may apply to the music industry etc. who do *dominate* a market but not to individual artists who dominate nothing -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 14:59:35 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink I withdraw intentionally obtuse charge. Your claim that attribution makes no sense for Public Domain was just offensively wrong. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:01:51 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod again, you react to things I did not actually say -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:03:50 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink You dominate the market for your own previously created work — the law grants you that personal monopoly over redistribution. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:05:27 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod provided there is a market at all - which, so far, I doubt :p. But OUR law does not grant a 'monopoly'. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:06:13 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink Whether that monopoly is evil or good is a separate question. 18th C govts perceived it as a necessary *evil*. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:09:03 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod WHICH '18th-century' governments - and how is that relevant to today -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:11:37 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink "Early copyright privileges were called 'monopolies'." Check frequency of that word here: http://ur1.ca/aixfc -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:19:58 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod that article is limited. For one thing, it does not mention Dutch Author's law. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:27:23 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink The Berne Convention says it doesn't matter. Anyway I can see you are seeking opportunities to make more irrelevant distinctions -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:33:10 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod WHERE, exactly, does the Berne convention say 'it does not matter'? Anyway what you think you can see is wrong. -
zotz (zotz)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:34:24 EDT
zotz
it is a monopoly but just in a very narrow field. say I get the monopoly to sell red thread between 3 & 4 pm on every third friday? -
zotz (zotz)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:36:24 EDT
zotz
hope no one has a large economic interest in your work being pd. </tinfoilhat> -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:40:05 EDT
marjoleink
@zotz so do I! -
zotz (zotz)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:40:31 EDT
zotz
depending on how law is written, it may or may not, but it does not necessarily have to. right? -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:40:42 EDT
marjoleink
@zotz in a very narrow field the concept of 'market' becomes essentially meaningless. -
zotz (zotz)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:58:12 EDT
zotz
it is certainly not meaningless. and in the case of copyright on X's work, there may be no market or a large market, and X controls it. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:16:04 EDT
marjoleink
I do NOT claim (nor ever will) a 'monopoly' in the market for photographs of windows in Karakul, even though I do claim my photos are unique -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:18:14 EDT
laroquod
@rysiek Yep. Bored now. -
johnnynull (johnnynull)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:20:30 EDT
johnnynull
@laroquod I give you credit. You held out longer than I would've. -
zotz (zotz)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:23:16 EDT
zotz
and that addresses the point how exactly? -
zotz (zotz)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:27:36 EDT
zotz
the instance when a work protected by copyright or patent passes out out of that protection does not alter the fact of who made the work. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:29:31 EDT
marjoleink
@zotz true. Provided the author is actually known, which in the case of PD is not necessarily the case. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:30:55 EDT
marjoleink
@zotz in spite of that I claim the right to put my works in the PD *before* the 'protection' ends. Thanks for the reminder. -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:33:53 EDT
laroquod
@marjoleink Nobody's impressed that you plan to relinquish copyright when you are dead and gone so spare us the tale of self-sacrifice. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:36:07 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod no sacrifice involved except lawyer's fees. I do no want my heirs to profit from what I made. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:37:00 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod I'd prefer them to be guardians instead -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:40:35 EDT
marjoleink
@laroquod anyway, I don't care who's 'impressed' or not. and I'm certainly not impressed by your reading skills -
lxoliva (lxoliva)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:42:20 EDT 
lxoliva
@marjoleink many jurisdictions deny copyright holders the right to shorten their monopoly or otherwise fully give it up -
lxoliva (lxoliva)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:44:20 EDT
lxoliva
@marjoleink FYI, by putting the works in the public domain, you're enabling them (and anyone else) to profit from it -
lxoliva (lxoliva)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:45:04 EDT
lxoliva
@marjoleink and you've just retracted your earlier attempt to disconnect the copyright monopoly from earnings/compensation/profit -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:45:19 EDT
marjoleink
@lxoliva indeed. That's why I'll need a lawyer to prevent my heirs from profiting from my work when I die. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:45:57 EDT
marjoleink
@lsoliva exactly. Provided I am allowed by Dutch law to do that in the first place! -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:49:31 EDT
marjoleink
@lxoliva as far as I'm concerned, my 'author'ship ends when I die -
lxoliva (lxoliva)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:54:56 EDT
lxoliva
@marjoleink “exactly”? you say “I don't want them to profit from sth”, then claim you'll do sth that enables them to profit from it! -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:56:22 EDT
laroquod
@lxoliva Half of her arguments are in contradiction with the other half, but try telling her that and she'll deny that there are two halves. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:58:17 EDT
marjoleink
@lxoliva ??? I WANT to have my works in the PD when I die PROVIDED our law allows that. How is that not clear?
-
All Hacker Poesy content and data are available under the