Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Mar 2006 11:32 UTC, submitted by shanecoughlan
"Over 500 million people use the Internet, and over a billion computers are deployed around the world. It has become impossible to ignore the issue of content management and access. Call it Digital Rights Management if you will, or call it working out how to manage copying in the digital realm. We need to solve the problem of how digital information will be shared, and an equally important need to set open and wide reaching standards. It has been more than ten years since computers and the Internet really started to take off, and there is still no coherent approach to restricted (or unrestricted) information sharing. This is a serious problem."
Thread beginning with comment 109204
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-06
PS: copyright originated in France and the UK, not in the US.
Never said copyright was invented in the US. I was talking about the purpose of the law in the US and no I am not a US citizen but have knowledge about copyright in the US. From my perspective it seems that the majority of revenue producing copyrighted material originates in the US and US based companies seem to be pushing hardest for DRM it therefore seemed relevant to state the purpose of copyright law in that country.
Exactly, and there'd be nothing you can do, legally, since plagiarism is nor a criminal, nor a civil offense. You could jump up and down, but besides publicity it'd give you nothing.
...
If the material is not copyrighted, then they can come along and do whatever they want with it, and there'd be nothing you could legally do to stop them.
It would also be fraud in the general sense and possibly be fraud in tort law. Maybe a lawyer could tell us the range of actions that could be taken against the fraudster.
But in any event you remember Milli Vanilli. When it came to the attention of the public that they were committing fraud their career ended rather ubruptly.
THAT is why we have copyright.
That is not why the US has copyright (I don't know about other countries). I think you mean "that is why we NEED copyright". Different things.
Suggesting we eliminate copyright is so narrowminded, it just ain't funny anymore.
Personally I would not eliminate copyright but I would reduce the period over which it can be enforced.
Edited 2006-03-29 15:31