Originally posted by mysterioustranger
I will just make several points not open to interpretation because they stand as law.
Those movies we rent and dvd's we buy? That page or two at the beginning of each that we zip past informs us that it is a crime to take any part of it and (sampling-youtube creations-etc, etc) and mis-represent it as "new" and make any money off what one creates. Thats all. But, can we use it? Sure. Can we pass that around? Of course. But what the meaning is we cannot take it or any part or parts of it, create something new, and represent it as ours. Thats it with that.
Im in agreement here. I dont mind having my stuff in discussion or even publication if the public wants. But if you SELL it and claim it as a whole with no credit as your own creation alone? Then that violates the copyright of the creator. Period.
The world is changing and its ok to discuss stuff and pass info and links around. Just give credit where its due...and if you sell it or make $$$ of of it? Credit it, contact the copyright owner and Im sure they'll be glad their works are getting out there farther than it could otherwise.
We need to change things so its less restrictive for the average bloggers to use. All info should be free...just not to change, modify or sell it....and claim it as a new"original" work.
So, let the info-flow!
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: because
Er.. so if I get a PDF copy of your book and post it here as long as I give you credit it's alright?
LOL.. seems to be what you are saying..
I think this issue of News articles is fine because it's just that.. News.. not a whole printed book or other copyrighted material.
I also think the Judge was Pissed cus this company took advantage of copyright laws to make gain for itself in an unseemly way. I think he let his personal angst sway his opinion - I would have done the same - justice in this case was done.
edit on 27-3-2011 by JohnPhoenix because: errors