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.

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