Copyright? How about no.
I was just starting up my new app project on Github and I was going to do something I did before, write my own non-licence. Well, it turns out that someone has saved me the effort, and I want to share it.
I have a very big disagreement with any kind of claim of monopoly, because the law of nature and the law of jungle does not have these, you adapt or you die. Not only that, the faith in this system of Letters Patent is part of the reason why you still can't read the complete writings of Nikola Tesla.
So, in case you share my philosophical position about copyright, and you want to release work properly into the public domain, no strings attached, and even better, put it on here, where it will stand recorded as your original work for as long as someone maintains the blockchain or after it is dead, the archive, this is the licence for you.
This is an interesting topic.
@l0k1, I agree with your thoughts, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as it may seem.
I posted an article on this earlier this week. A possible solutions to the Steemit copyright issue - https://steemit.com/steemit/@spartanza/a-possible-solution-to-copyright-images-issue-steemit-has
While I agree with your post, I also don't. I see this topic as such: A musician records a piece of music, and the piece of music is now essentially a copy of themselves. This is the same as a woodworker making a bench, or a journalist copying their thoughts and understanding of a situation down into text. It is a copy of themselves. Even me typing this is a copy of myself.
So while I agree that we don't really own ideas for example like Tesla explained in his actions during his life, I do believe that there should be protection to a degree with regards to the copies we make of ourselves.
The issue is the middle-man/men/corporations that have this idea that they own the copies. My article attached outlines with blockchain, this middle-man issue is addressed, which is cool.
Thank you for your posts.
No, a copy of a recording is not the person. Can you punch the recording in the face? nope? well it's not the same. Especially not if me or my property incurred time and energy to produce the copy.
The only protection I think is valid and enforceable, and is completely consistent with most of the systems of jurisprudence up until the 20th century, and even embedded in some of the old British Acts, especially the 'Statute of Monopolies 1624' specifically attempted to outlaw what grew into the patent system we see to day, and as an offshoot of it, copyright law, - the only valid claim is that you have proof you put something into the public domain first, and therefore neither can the content be patented, nor copyrighted.
If you see some great public domain work, and you riff off it, maybe you cut and paste, use a lot of it wholesale, but you didn't copy the whole thing, first of all, it will take no time for a bot like Cheetah to find what you derived from, but since you made the effort to riff on it, you have not done anything essentially wrong. If you released the content verbatim, and claimed it was your work, you have committed an act of fraud. Because it is not your work.
But saying that what I have already allowed other people to copy, a prerequisite of distribution, such as posting it here, to claim it is still my property, is a violation of the other person's property and implicitly a reneging on my part of providing the ability for someone to make a copy, and thus implied, and tacit permission. A copy is not the same thing as the original. As the creator, I rightfully claim the original. But when you make a recording, when you print it up and give it to someone, that's theirs.
Ok, maybe if you just lent it to them but stipulated to not copy it, that's a violation of a gentleman's agreement. If you want to make that stick, the recipient, under equity and common law, you have to make them sign an agreement with a witness that they will not. No matter how much you may protest, if you don't have agreement with a authentic, verifiable recording, you have nothing, the matter is not justiciable. Without evidence, it is just he said she said, hearsay.
No monopoly is valid, especially not under any legal system that claims it grandfathers in the British Acts which includes between the Magna Carta and now. None of these old Acts have been struck down, and yes, I will concede, most modern judges will laugh at you, maybe even say 'you are correct but that is not normal anymore'. Since when did law have anything to do with normal? Law should be about protecting people's lives and property, which are one and the same thing anyway. Protecting vaporous intangible things implicitly violates life and property.
If you don't want people to copy, don't give them a copy. Simple as that. Sure you might be able to get nasty men with guns to hunt down those who do, but that does not make you right, or just.
These times will come when mankind loses almost everything...
The very laws you refer to, of copyright, state in their preambles the purpose of them is to incentivise innovation. But that's not how those who claim copyright actually operate. Innovation suffers, and copyright is the centre of how big corporations and government keep technology from leapfrogging them. It is understandable that they would do this, since they can sit pretty and profit while doing nothing, but it is not in the interests of the people who they claim to be subject to these laws, not one bit, whatsoever.
Maybe someone someday - will write a few lines codes in blockchain smart contract as licence rights automatically attached to yours content.
BTW. some well known corporations tries to get licence for everything, even for the water.
Just because some, in fact most judges allow this, does not make it lawful. Without a valid contract or recording of verbal or gestural consent to the terms of this agreement, under contract, equity and common law, such a claim is frivolous and vexatious.
We are precisely in the pickle we are in as a species because these principles of law are being violated every day by governments and their monopoly court systems. This will not end until people refuse to comply. Compliance is tacit agreement. Noncompliance is peaceful protest and does anyone, for example you, believe that our current system does anything other than favour the elites who think by dint of their birth they have the right to treat us like property?
You may comply out of fear, but eventually enough people will not just rebel, but they will find a way to be a long way away from the long arm of these monopolists and we'll be there poking faces at them in the safe knowledge that we only got away from them because we refused to be cowed.