So now since I don't know the laws I should just not say anything :) ?
No, much to everyone's surprise, I'm not a lawyer. In fact, I'm just a
humble little perl programmer. I have created some "content", and I've
made it publicly available. If I found someone using my graphics or
text in their homepages without saying clearly that a portion of their
content came from me, I would have to find a way to get them to credit
my work.
Perhaps that would involve e-mails, phone calls, or whatever, and if the
copyright laws were clearly enumerated by someone (who's in charge here,
anyway?) I may use them to pursue my case.
What I would prefer, however, is that materials I had deemed "for
consumption" were protected from the general public by some kind of
e-cash or credit transaction validation barrier on my server. Perhaps
we (we content providers, as Brian put it) could set up "tables of
contents" or overviews in the freely accessible part of our net sites,
and then interested consumers could enter in their payment information
and gain access to a particular directory or downloadable file.
Of course, the outcome of this could be that the "free" web suddenly
becomes nothing but advertisements, promotions, and pointers to
pay-to-play content. Zzzzzz. Sounds sort of familiar.
I didn't mean that just because certain files were in this "free" web
filespace that persons other than the author and/or owner of the
material would have "fair use" rights to whatever they can find, unless
specifically granted by the artist.
> The belief put forward by Robert Turk, IMHO, is not only wrong - it's
> dangerous to the growth of the online media.
This is a first! I've got to save this one for posterity...
> No one is going to make content
> for the web if they know it becomes a public domain donation to the world
> (except some governmental sources, research sources, etc.... but those works
> weren't copyrightable in the first place!) There is also a significant
> difference between "copyrighted material" and "proprietary information"
> (although Mr. Turk attempts to equate the two as one and the same.)
Hello? This is not what I wrote at all. First, my beliefs were
"dangerous to the growth of online media" and now I'm giving away the
web. Uh, no. I think that the www can and should have proprietary
subsets, and that's where protected materials should go. Documents on
the web are _already_ there for the taking...that's the nature of the
media. Once again, the duplicitous straw man argument rears its oft-
seen head...
> I dare Mr. Turk to use his VCR to record _Star Wars_ from cable and make
> significant clips from that available on the Internet - after all, if it's
> broadcast on TV, it's not copyrighted anymore, right? Just because media is
> transmitted does not cause it to lose it's protections under these laws.
I dare you to find a statement of mine advocating video piracy.
Ooops, my time to respond to this twisted take on my statements has come
to an end. I've got to get back to the serious work of undermining "the
growth of online media".
BTW, it's nice to be able to share ideas and questions with persons of a
"like mind" but try not to take _too much liberty with what your fellows
write. And don't forget Polonius' advice to Laertes re: lawyers...
(i.e., kill them)
-- Rob Turk <mailto:rturk@austin.ibm.com> Always Un-Officially Speaking Web Work <http://toolbox.austin.ibm.com/~rturk> http://www.megalith.com It may be that your whole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.