I was about to write a post when I found that Blogger has been assimilated into Google. Of course Google has owned Blogger for some time now and my accounts were linked, but they finally made the transition to uniformity, much like Google Reader did a month or so back. Blogger (from the inside) looks like Google+ now with orange buttons and thin frames. It also looks like it has incorporated various other Google+ traits like location posting. Well, what fun.
Anyway, the point I was getting to is the copyright issue I wrote about a while back about SOPA. In case you didn't notice, protests against SOPA and PIPA in the form of website blackouts (notably Wikipedia) happened on Wednesday. Now, the two have been "shelved" according to my sources and hopefully trashed in the future.
In learning more about this issue, I found a book called Free Culture by Laurence Lessig wherein the history and recent developments (as of 2004 anyway) of copyright were detailed. It was an interesting read and showed me how copyright, and how it is viewed by the public, has changed over the past 40-50 years or so.
Where copyright once only prevented publishers from printing a book within 14 years of the author filing for copyright, it now covers all works from any unauthorized use for up to 120 years (it'll probably get extended again come 2020). Hence the phrase "All Rights Reserved." The copyright holder reserves any and all rights to the distribution, dissemination, or modification of the work. Sure there's "Fair Use" but that's often only applicable after defending it in court against multi-million dollar corporations.
This presents a problem (a number of them really, let's look at these ones). 99% (or so) of the works created since 1930 have no commercial value but are still under copyright. If I wanted to use any of them (an old film, a forgotten book, a dusty vinyl, a random photograph, a certain webpage) for any reason, I could try my luck and use it anyway (illegally), or I would have to track down anyone who might have a claim on the work. Normally I wouldn't have to worry because after the copyright expired, it would fall into public domain and I could use it freely. Instead, I probably won't use it and no one else will ever see it.
That's why I licensed my blog under Creative Commons (co-founded by the aforementioned Laurence Lessig). You can see the license at the bottom of the page. CC (their phrase is "some rights reserved") aims to clarify limits and allowances for distribution, modification, and commercial use. I opted for the free distribution license, just so long as they link back here and give me credit. Obviously for some silly blog (3200 views over four years or so), it doesn't really matter much, but if I were to write a song or a book, I could apply a non-commercial use license so that I could earn some money off my work.
My understanding of how this works is that CC sits under United States copyright law. Because all rights are reserved for me for my work, I can choose to give up certain rights that I don't feel are necessary. CC gives me the legal jargon (written by lawyers) to effectively control my work with less ambiguity. I really think there would be far less copyright infringement if media companies were just more open on the matter but I don't get the feeling they want to give access of their property to commoners. They seem to prefer litigation.
So that's my take on it. Note that this isn't about piracy. Piracy is illegal. Unfortunately crossing into illegal territory happened long before while still in fair use land. That kinda takes the edge off of being a felon.
Anyway, the point I was getting to is the copyright issue I wrote about a while back about SOPA. In case you didn't notice, protests against SOPA and PIPA in the form of website blackouts (notably Wikipedia) happened on Wednesday. Now, the two have been "shelved" according to my sources and hopefully trashed in the future.
In learning more about this issue, I found a book called Free Culture by Laurence Lessig wherein the history and recent developments (as of 2004 anyway) of copyright were detailed. It was an interesting read and showed me how copyright, and how it is viewed by the public, has changed over the past 40-50 years or so.
Where copyright once only prevented publishers from printing a book within 14 years of the author filing for copyright, it now covers all works from any unauthorized use for up to 120 years (it'll probably get extended again come 2020). Hence the phrase "All Rights Reserved." The copyright holder reserves any and all rights to the distribution, dissemination, or modification of the work. Sure there's "Fair Use" but that's often only applicable after defending it in court against multi-million dollar corporations.
This presents a problem (a number of them really, let's look at these ones). 99% (or so) of the works created since 1930 have no commercial value but are still under copyright. If I wanted to use any of them (an old film, a forgotten book, a dusty vinyl, a random photograph, a certain webpage) for any reason, I could try my luck and use it anyway (illegally), or I would have to track down anyone who might have a claim on the work. Normally I wouldn't have to worry because after the copyright expired, it would fall into public domain and I could use it freely. Instead, I probably won't use it and no one else will ever see it.
That's why I licensed my blog under Creative Commons (co-founded by the aforementioned Laurence Lessig). You can see the license at the bottom of the page. CC (their phrase is "some rights reserved") aims to clarify limits and allowances for distribution, modification, and commercial use. I opted for the free distribution license, just so long as they link back here and give me credit. Obviously for some silly blog (3200 views over four years or so), it doesn't really matter much, but if I were to write a song or a book, I could apply a non-commercial use license so that I could earn some money off my work.
My understanding of how this works is that CC sits under United States copyright law. Because all rights are reserved for me for my work, I can choose to give up certain rights that I don't feel are necessary. CC gives me the legal jargon (written by lawyers) to effectively control my work with less ambiguity. I really think there would be far less copyright infringement if media companies were just more open on the matter but I don't get the feeling they want to give access of their property to commoners. They seem to prefer litigation.
So that's my take on it. Note that this isn't about piracy. Piracy is illegal. Unfortunately crossing into illegal territory happened long before while still in fair use land. That kinda takes the edge off of being a felon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment