RE: Action

Eric Steuer is the Creative Commons (CC) blog urged to support CC in their defense against ASCAP 's assertion that CC undermines their copyright.

I myself am a big supporter of the Creative Commons approach to copyright. One, because copyright is not black and white, but about others' use. Two, because it gives the author control over his own work.

It is useless to ASCAP claim is served cynical and mendacious, and in conjunction with fundraising for their organization. But it is in itself true that "FREE" challenges the old licensee. The control is removed from the organization to the individual and the previous business models are challenged by new ones.

So instead of defending a time there was before 1995, so should ASCAP transform their organization so it can handle the challenges of composers, authors and publishers face today.

There remains a need for administration of copyright, legal assistance, and similar work as an organization have better opportunities to perform than the individual. It may only happen under conditions other than those 20 years ago.

The band " Elsinore "would use a picture painted by Brittany Pyle as their album cover. Rights holders of Roy Lichtenstein "Kiss V" but believes that Pyles image breaks with their copyright. It turns out that Pyle has merely used the same original source as Lichtenstein, a comic book here revealed on " Deconstructing Lichtenstein "and not Lichtenstein.

So Lichtenstein is good, while Pyle / Elsinore can not? Some claim that copyright is not so simple again:

On one side is difficult to conclude whether Lichtenstein has done more good for comics than Andy Warhol has soup (like a naughty puts it at Techdirt ). But if Lichtenstein popularization or processing of the image in the form of either change of context (art gallery) or cropping of the image is enough to claim his copyright, then the carpet under the copyright of images probably first pulled away.

On the other hand, there is yet no evidence that Lichtenstein copied another - besides that it is common knowledge that Lichtenstein was inspired by comics [ Wikipedia ]. The source of the cartoon is not revealed. So what if Lichtenstein came first and the material that Pyle has painted after, were made later? Then Pyles image a copy of a copy and thus also a copy of the original work.

Unless it is not inherited, because breach of copyright has not been done from an intentional action. Pyle has enough known to Lichtenstein's work, but the intension was not to copy Lichtenstein, but Lichtenstein original source?

Today I've seen " Copying is Theft groove "on Youtube, a video card that must stand by my comment about this tangled case.

I have incidentally story from Boing Boing .

I wonder if the Press Council are realizing that the old concept of Copyright is becoming obsolete? In their recent publication of the annual report for 2009, they write that information out from open Facebook profiles can be used freely:

"Information collected on an open profile are considered to be publicly available. Therefore, the media may use the content without asking the person behind the profile for permission first. "

The problem is that the Press Council mixed media ethics together with copyright. It is an ethical question whether it should be possible for the press to use private data a person protects against alien eyes. It's a copyright issue if it is allowed to publish a text or image. Flickr has an active collaboration with Creative Commons , which raises awareness about rights to the image.
Facebook , which perhaps has the world's largest collection of images that do not pay particular attention to the copyright of each picture. But in the "Statement of Rights & Responsibilities" star follows in section 2, paragraph. 4:

"When you publish content or information Using the" everyone "setting, it indebærer everyone, inklusive people off of Facebook, vil have two att access information and we kan groove having control over vad De do with it."

But already in section 2, paragraph 1, they have defined the right to be your own and Facebook (because it required them to publish your content to your friends).

"(..) You grant us a nonexclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use eventuelle IP content at du post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). "

(And Facebook's rights obsolete the day you delete your content if you have any doubts. See same place).

Firstly, it is not up to the Press Council to determine whether material posted on Facebook can be used freely by the press.
Secondly, I think that their distinction between an open and a closed profile is not so simple. I allow, for example. friends of friends to see my pictures, but only my friends can follow the flow on my wall. My personal data are accessible to all, as these can be found anywhere else. Since, however, I've created myself on Friend Feed and Friend Feed use as live feed on my website you can see all my postings on my wall there.

But it can be Pressenævnet simply by relaxing at new times, where content from newspapers, not hiding behind a betalingsmur is freely usable by whom it may interest - unless it is used invasive of newspapers. Or to paraphrase another of the Press Council nice formulations:
Conversely, a user can come into possession of material from a payment newspaper that has so much public interest that public disclosure outweighs the interests of the article author. The material can be in such situations will be published without causing a breach of ethical rules.

Annual Report can be downloaded here: http://pressenaevnet.net.dynamicweb.dk/Files/Filer/pdf/Aarsberetning_2009.pdf

Google has taken a patent on their website. This means that Google has the right to a website consisting of a large search box with two buttons below it and a few links around.
The original news is available on Gawker.com . And the news is perhaps saying too much when there is a 4 ½ year long dispute between lawyers who have been settled to Google's advantage.

IBM is currently seeking a patent for a remote to twitter, blogs or updating your status, for example. Facebook, when watching television (as above I saw it first on Slashdot ).

I honestly do not know what companies think of today. Imagine if the church took a patent on the cross and the King of Denmark had secured the right to the heart. Or more seriously, if Ford had filled a patent on the car where we had so been today?

"Ford patents motor vehicle on wheels"

I understand perfectly well that investment in research and development of products is expensive and that products must be protected by some form of copyright. And it must be with an aftertaste in your mouth that Novo Nordisk require so much money for life-saving medicines that can save lives in the Third World. But without market mechanisms cure would perhaps never have been developed in the absence of business potential.

But in light of the quote about apples and ideas in the previous blog post , so it seems somewhat old fashioned to keep things to themselves. I did not tell about the two scenarios described in the report " Anarconomy "even though they are interesting enough.

One way it can go, is that some will fight for stronger legislation. Microsoft seems to have an interest in that there must be a global patent system (see article on CNET News .) It can be seen as a response to the global impact that we are under. But from a power perspective, the proposal only serves to build monopolies.
Pirate Party's success in Sweden and the growth in other European countries are actually helping to escalate the scenario of a conflict.

Another scenario that I want to be an advocate for is where Open Source is seen as a welcome competitor to the commercial. There will still be money to be made to issue guarantees (that it works). It is Open Source not true, because there really is a charge to point back to and possibly. sue. Income basis will still exist, but only manifest itself in other products or in lieu of experience. The commercial will have some opportunities to tailor solutions and focus on the specialty of general solutions in a different way than that which is free.

On the whole, I have difficulty understanding that people are so busy protecting their ideas to others to build upon them. If it's because I never even have an original idea, so it is perhaps a position with a short time, thanks. In this case it's just the idealist, who speak right now. And later it will be so cynic, whether I have become rich on the idea or not.

A good example: IBM provides software and other resources free for Linux partners. In exchange gets IBM knowledge and opportunity to use the Linux operating system on their machines, thus providing a computer at a competitive price.

"Anarconomy even new economic ground rules for logic challenges not only traditional monopolies. It challenges the company itself as value-added design, the hierarchical organizational structure and traditional pricing, what used to cost fortunes will be free in the future. "

The above quote to me is essential. It is Klaus Æ. Mogensen from CIFS , which stands behind the report "Anarconomy" (# 3, 2009). It is written legibly and divided into four chapters. The first is introductory to the concept. The next is about two scenarios for how the future might look like in relation to copyright in ideas (intellectual property). There is a chapter about how anarconomy expressed just now. And finally there is a chapter on "Business models are anarconomy". The latter, which in this context is most interesting, though such. Good morning Denmark on Monday spent more time on 3D printers. Perhaps because it is a tangible measure of how close this anarchic economy is upon us - and that it is not just about the Internet, but also can interfere with our physical life?

There is a huge growth in services on the Internet, where users themselves create and distribute (free) content. The reminder of our normal conceptions of particular ownership / copyright, which I will not dwell on in this context. But it has implications for how we can make money in the future. Technologies available in the form of easy, inexpensive deployment bears part of the credit / blame (if you will).

The report mentions a number of examples of how we can earn money in this economy:

• Attention from users is at a premium. This applies to the advertising-financed portion, where impressions, pay per click or action that counts. It may also be entities that were previously difficult to quantify. For example. individuals' attitudes and purchasing behavior, especially when opinion leaders are the most interesting.
• Voluntary donations are based on a desire among users to give the provider a coin to be present. The product is free, but users know that if they choose not to donate, so it may be that the product is not in the long run.
• Freemium is a term that covers the product is free. But if they are extra services, so it costs typically a small charge. The report also comes with an example from the physical world. Ryan Air offers flights from London to Barcelona for $ 20 even if it costs $ 70 to fly a passenger the stretch. The rest comes by additional charges for luggage, onboard sales and advertising revenue.
• We can also choose to give the product away in order to sell another. This is the music business that puts their music recordings available for free, legal download, and then make money on merchandise, concerts and the like. It could also be that the man made free software available, but that it was the support and additional equipment costs.

Especially "Peer 2 Peer" gets much attention in the chapter, which in my eyes is also good reason. In many ways users of the anarchist entities that upend the economy by being involved in product development, marketing, quality assurance, production and delivery of the service. The recommendation is that it should be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat. Sure, it's hard to accept that we should only serve 10% of what we earned before in relation to not earn anything. So there must surely be other solutions. Possibly. But the solution is not business as usual.

It is not because the report is blind to the negative sides of the trends that it sets. There is a difference between commercial and free products, they have never claimed that one will replace the other. Other good things to say about the report is the fine motivation barometer and other "fact boxes" over the more than 48 pages. I think that something is being done out of that flesh out all the ideas and analysis / interpretation of real events and existing things.

Mogensen refers to George Bernard Shaw's sympathetic equation:

"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I still have one apple each. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, we will both have two ideas. "

And that's when you master this mindset, it becomes possible to capitalize on these ideas - if I come with my assessment. Individual examples of business models in a "free" world, which I have reproduced from the report above are already known today. The future lies in how we attack our own product and ensure its value: the user and the sponsor.

The report can be downloaded at the CIFS site .