Slashdot Mirror

No no, you read those definitions from a NewSpeak site, that is trying to get us to talk and think and shape our beliefs as they like. Except instead the government directly, those who do this are the large corporations.

Piracy as a word describing copyright infringement is a new word (invented by Microsoft?). Theft/Stealing is taking without permission. Copying is not taking. Thus, copying can not be theft or stealing.

Property can indeed include copyright, but not information. The creators of the copyright clause in the constitution said so. These days copyright is no longer constitutional as it is not of limited time, so it is in itself illegal!

Such a level where choosen by the founding fathers becuase they discovered that the the intellectual property is vital to a growing economy.

The Founder were clear and emphatic: Things like copyright were useful to spur creation of new works. They almost certainly did not conceive of it as a way to spur the economy, as the contribution of IP to the total economy in 1787 was nearly nil. They thought that prosperity came from real estate. On the other hand, copyright and patent law could help give an incentive to authors and inventors. But they also recognized -- having suffered under the restrictive British system and having seen its negative effects -- that "intellectual property" law could also stifle and destroy the public domain. That's why copyright expires ... precisely because the Founders recognized that it was not "property" like a parcel of land or a musket.

No distinction was made between legal or illegal downloads (if there really is such a thing).

There is a difference. If I download music where the author / license permits it, then it is legal. Very easy. ;-)

The first thing is that there are a number of these licenses, some specific to particular media, some more general-purpose. I count nine so far (and I'm always looking for more). As a musician, I use the CzrPL which I wrote myself.

</self-promotion>

In some ways I suppose you could argue that this is insufficient. If your work gets incorporated into another person's work (as it should do under copyleft) but the derivative work is placed in an encrypted format then breaking the encryption is illegal under the DMCA regardless of the user's rights as a recipient of a copylefted work.

I believe that the GNU FDL specifies some conditions about open formats to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

The first thing is that there are a number of these licenses, some specific to particular media, some more general-purpose. I count nine so far (and I'm always looking for more). As a musician, I use the CzrPL which I wrote myself.

</self-promotion>

In some ways I suppose you could argue that this is insufficient. If your work gets incorporated into another person's work (as it should do under copyleft) but the derivative work is placed in an encrypted format then breaking the encryption is illegal under the DMCA regardless of the user's rights as a recipient of a copylefted work.

I believe that the GNU FDL specifies some conditions about open formats to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Ban anyone from making money off CWPL'd works, without the author's permission.

You could do this, but as you say, it doesn't really match the GPL. In fact, I think it conflicts with the open-source definition.

For my own music I made sure that it was possible for people to make money from my work without me getting any, and I did this entirely selfishly. I wanted to give people an incentive to redistribute my work and minimise the complications that would arise if I required money from it. Requiring payment would add too much overhead for my purposes.

3. Require that any subsequent or derivitive use also be automatically under the CWPL. (This also doesn't go with the GPL, and I'm not even user if this is a good idea.)

Actually this is rather close to the GPL. Any derivative works of GPLed software must also be GPLed.

Anyway, I'd really advise you not to continue until you take a look at the other licenses that are around. I'm sorry to plug my own website again, but it really is the only place I know of that has this information... I've compiled a list of free media licenses. Please take a look at these before you embark on making your own.

Actually there's a fair amount of this around. I release all my music under a GPL-style license.

As it happens there are quite a number of copyleft licenses for music and other non-software content. I maintain a list of them and I'm always on the lookout for more.

Exactly how helpful all this will be against the music industry I don't know...

Actually there's a fair amount of this around. I release all my music under a GPL-style license.

As it happens there are quite a number of copyleft licenses for music and other non-software content. I maintain a list of them and I'm always on the lookout for more.

Exactly how helpful all this will be against the music industry I don't know...