So, not science - but definitely technology and ethics. I promise to get on with some fun science posts once I've finished this terrible summer class.
"But C-61 is about greed, not just rewards, about stifling the age-old enjoyment of sharing music with friends. It imposes a rigid black-and-white legal framework on a multihued, free-flowing landscape. It's about insisting on horse-and-buggy etiquette in an automotive age." - From The beat will go on despite the federal Conservatives @ The Vancouver Sun
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What strikes me the most in this whole copyright debackle is that we are people who do not have any rights to large portions of our own culture. Why doesn't this aspect get more attention?
If you grew up and loved Star Wars, or Superman, or if you want to use a well-known piece of thematic music - too bad. We may be given opportunities to consume, but we have no rights to create. It's historically unprecedented, and it's not surprising that people go ahead and create anyway - work often suffixed with "please don't sue me".
Most people I know don't even know the difference between copyrights, patents and trademarks, let alone "author's life + 50 years" or what is and isn't subject to copyright, or even what's wrong with allowing professional copyright holders to write their own rules.
Yea... :(
... which raises the question of how copyright can be an agreement between authors and the public when the public is ignorant of that to which they have supposedly agreed? And furthermore are presumed to have agreed a priori, generation after generation.
What right did my great great grandparents' government have to mortgage our culture for short-term authorial compensation?
What right do we have to continue doing it?
What a farce.
Post a Comment