Freitag, 6. April 2012

Does Copyright still have a right to exist?

Does Copyright still have a right to exist? For many decades in human history, there was nothing like copyright. In medieval ages, for example, anyone could copy a book by hand, its content was not pro- tected. Then, Gutenberg invented printing. Ideas, texts could be mass-produced and a few hundred years later, there were authors and many people could read. In the 18th century, an author wrote a book and a publisher printed it. The author was paid a royalty. Then, other printers made priated copies or these books, and since they didn't have to pay the author, had lower expenses and could their books cheaper. The idea oi copyright came in. The author got the rights in his text, copying that without permission was forbidden. A good idea, at least from the point of the author 500 years ago. But in the last 20 years, a new technology developed, making the dream of universal access to knowledge, education and culture real: The Internet. Besides so many other things, the Internet changed how we deal with information. Uther than in the days, when copyright was inveted, everyone is a publisher now, writes, remixes and reuses new and old information. Copyright is outdated. The Internet changed the whole game. Copyright law didn't change. Nowadays, there's copyright trolling and many people don't even respect the property of others on the web. I think Copyright reached the end of its lifecycle,and now interferes with the free flow of information the web brought us. All the content on maschinengeschrieben is licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA license, so everyone is free to remix, share, edit and copy my works, if he/she attributes my work \with a link), if his/her new work is used for non-commercial purposes only and_i£ he/she shares the new work under the same or a similiar license. 1 think that makes much more sense in our age of sharing, remixing and transforming. what do you think? Triumph tippa This awesome post was brought to you by the mighty TyposphereDas Urheberrecht noch eine Existenzberechtigung? Seit vielen Jahrzehnten in der menschlichen Geschichte gab es nichts wie Urheberrecht. Im Mittelalter zum Beispiel jemand könnte ein Buch von Hand zu kopieren, war sein Inhalt nicht pro- geschützt. Dann erfand Gutenberg-Druck. Ideen, Texte könnten in Massen produziert werden und ein paar hundert Jahre später waren es Autoren, und viele Menschen lesen konnten. Im 18. Jahrhundert, schrieb ein Autor ein Buch und eine Verleger druckte es. Der Autor wurde eine Lizenzgebühr bezahlt. Dann machte andere Drucker priated Kopien oder diese Bücher, und da sie nicht über den Autor zu zahlen, hatten niedrigere Kosten und konnten ihre Bücher billiger. Die Idee kam herein oi Urheberrecht Der Autor bekam die Rechte in seinem Text, dass das Kopieren ohne Erlaubnis wurde verboten. Eine gute Idee, zumindest unter dem Aspekt des Autors vor 500 Jahren. Aber in den letzten 20 Jahren entwickelt eine neue Technologie, so dass der Traum von der universellen Zugang zu Wissen, Bildung und Kultur real: Das Internet. Neben so vielen anderen Dingen, Das Internet verändert, wie wir mit Informationen umgehen. Uther als in den Tagen, wenn urheberrechtlich inveted wurde, ist jeder ein Verlag nun schreibt, Remixe und Wiederverwendungen neuen und alten Informationen. Urheberrecht ist veraltet. Das Internet verändert die ganze Spiel. Copyright-Gesetz nicht ändern. Heutzutage gibt es Copyright Trolling und viele Menschen wissen nicht einmal respektieren die Eigentum anderer im Internet. Ich denke, Urheberrecht erreichte das Ende seines Lebenszyklus, und jetzt stört den freien Fluss von Informationen der Web gebracht mit uns auf. Alle Inhalte auf maschinengeschrieben wird lizenziert unter einer Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA-Lizenz, so dass jeder ist kostenlos zu remixen, zu teilen, bearbeiten und kopieren Sie meine Werke, wenn er / sie Attribute meiner Arbeit \ mit einem Link), wenn seine / ihre neue Arbeit ist verwendet für nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke nur AND_i £ er / sie Aktien das neue Werk unter der gleichen oder einer ähnlichen Lizenz. 1 denke, das macht viel mehr Sinn in unserem Zeitalter des Teilens, Remixen und Transformation. was meinst du? Triumph Tippa Il diritto d'autore hanno ancora il diritto di esistere? Per molti decenni nella storia umana, non c'era niente come il diritto d'autore. In età medievale, ad esempio, chiunque poteva copiare un libro a mano, il suo contenuto non era pro- protetti. Poi, Gutenberg inventò la stampa. Idee, i testi possono essere prodotti in serie e poche centinaia di anni più tardi, ci sono stati gli autori e molte persone in grado di leggere. Nel 18 ° secolo, un autore ha scritto un libro e un editore ha stampato. L'autore è stato pagato una royalty. Poi, altre stampanti fatto copie priated o questi libri, e poiché non ha dovuto pagare l'autore, ha avuto minori spese e poteva loro libri meno costosi. L'idea oi diritti d'autore entrò L'autore ha ottenuto il diritti nel suo testo, che la copia senza autorizzazione era proibito. Una buona idea, almeno dal punto di dell'autore 500 anni fa. Ma negli ultimi 20 anni, una nuova tecnologia sviluppata, rendendo il sogno di un accesso universale alla conoscenza, all'istruzione e la vera cultura: The Internet. Oltre a tante altre cose, Internet cambiato il modo in cui trattiamo le informazioni. Uther che nei giorni, quando il copyright fu inveted, tutti sono un editore ora, scrive, remix e riutilizza vecchi e nuovi informazioni. Copyright è obsoleto. Il Internet cambiato intero gioco. La legge sul copyright non è cambiato. Al giorno d'oggi, c'è copyright trolling e molte persone non rispetta nemmeno la proprietà di terzi sul web. Penso Copyright raggiunto la fine del suo ciclo di vita, e ora interferisce con il libero flusso di informazioni che il web ha portato di noi. Tutti i contenuti di maschinengeschrieben è concesso in licenza sotto una Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA licenza, in modo che tutti è libero di remix, condividere, modificare e copiare le mie opere, se lui / lei attribuisce il mio \ lavoro con un link), se la sua / il suo nuovo lavoro è utilizzato per scopi non commerciali solo and_i sterline egli / ella parti il nuovo lavoro in condizioni identiche o una licenza simile. Uno pensa che ha molto più senso nella nostra epoca di condivisione, remix e trasformazione. cosa ne pensate? Triumph Tippa


Bill M hat gesagt…

Copyright for the most part is all about money. Composers like Bach, Beethoven, Handel and many others of that era all took it as a complement when another composer used some of their work their (another composer) piece. Now composers sue others for use of their works. There is more. I am being a bit sarcastic.

Copyright does protect music, the printed work and photos. It still has its use. Many people today still allow others to use their work as long as the originator is noted on the reused. Why I like copyright is that when I did photography the local news paper would always like my photo, usually for a small sum or free, than I'd see it copyrighted by them, the other big news agencies and/or others. Then they wondered why they could no longer use my photos.

Dwayne F. hat gesagt…

I have been mulling my own post on the subject of copyright. It will be longer than what can reasonably fit in your comments. But I will go ahead and share some of my philosophy.

Your comments on Creative Comments licensing point to the concept of choice. There are times when I choose to have my creative photographic work freely available for non-commercial purposes. I've also donated full files for all uses with, and sometimes without, attribution.

There are also times I choose to retain full copyright. For example, I have hiked to cliff ruins that have perhaps 50 visitors per year. That involved a 20 hour drive to get to the region, primitive camping in a wilderness area and 8 miles of hiking following topo maps and sparse cairns. That and carrying $2,000 worth of camera equipment and timing the hike to get to location in just the right light.

There are also times I am getting to my car or camp an hour or two after sunset. I love the effort and craft involved in chasing light, but I don't always want to give away things that came from great effort. For me at least, copyright is selective and proportional.

I'd love to hear the perspectives of writers. Does a blog entry feel different than a novella?

Richard P hat gesagt…

A few simplistic reflections:

1. Copyright, like patents, encourages creativity by offering the creator exclusive rights to make money from the creation. Often, full-time creators can't afford to give away their creations for free.

2. Copyright is a legal expression of the ethical rule that you should respect others' property. If you profit from the work of others without permission, that is akin to stealing. (Example: making a dress from someone's typewriter photo!)

3. In an age when anything visible or audible can so easily be digitized, copied, and published, © is obviously becoming nearly impossible to enforce.

4. I like your Creative Commons policy, and think it's very appropriate for work that is intended to exist outside the moneymaking realm, in an atmosphere of sharing. Maybe I'll add something like that to my own blog!

Miguel Ángel Chávez Silva hat gesagt…

I have mixed feelings about this whole issue. I wrote a book and had it published, and I'm supposedly going to receive some fees from its sales sometime in the future (hopefuly while I'm still alive), and I can tell you that, the amount of effort involved in writing that book (reading references, doing research, writing, proofreading, drawing charts and illustrations, proofreading, creating tables and indexes, proofreading, writing footnotes, proofreading, creating the bibliography, and proofreading again) was so big and took so long to produce the final text, that it is really frustrating to see it taken and used without even mentioning who took the effort to produce that text in the first place. In cases like that, I am all for the copyright enforcement; the effort involved in creating that book was too much to give away.

Blog entries, on the other hand, are created with other purposes in mind: they are meant to be shared, and the amount of effort involved in creating them is by no means comparable to the effort needed to write a chapter of a book. Perhaps if my entries were technical treatises or involved a lot of research, I wouldn't be posting them in a blog to begin with. So, I agree with the idea of creativity sharing involved in the CC licensing, but I also want the rights of authors who choose to copyright their works to be respected. It's both a matter of money, but also of ethics.

notagain hat gesagt…

I read a fascinating book about this some time ago. You can find it here:
It seems the stated purpose of copyright is to avoid Miguel's problem, yet it didn't work for him.

Kommentar veröffentlichen

Danke für Ihren Kommentar! Haben Sie Lust, mehr zu schreiben als einen Kommentar? Share fascination.
Thanks for your comment! Would you like to write more than a comment? Share fascination.
Es kann bis zu 24 Stunden dauern, bis ein Kommentar moderiert ist und erscheint.
It may take up to 24 hours until a comment is moderated and published.