WipOut Contest

musicmaster writes "A couple of organisations that worry about too much copyright protection have organised an essay contest about intellectual property. This contest is meant as an alternative to a similar WIPO contest. The contest can be found at Wipout Among the participating organisations are Center for the public domain, the Register, the EFF and the GNU foundation."

Comments

Re:Great but...

[geekfiend]

The Declaration of Independence, does that ring a bell? If you consider the defination of the word, it was an essay. An essay that changed history. Some say for the worse, but it definatly had an impact!!!! And it did work. TJ did a good real life job of telling the world why the USoA decided to jump off the England Bandwagon

Some History of the Copyright

[namelessone99]

I cam across this while looking at Eric Flint's Homepage (1632 author). He has put about half of his books online for the reading enjoyment of the masses. He is very adament about not taking copyrights too far. http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm. Here is the the first paragraph of the page: " These are two speeches given by Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841, when the issue of copyright was being hammered out. They are, no other word for it, brilliant ? and cover everything fundamental which is involved in the issue. (For those not familiar with him, Macaulay would eventually become one of the foremost British historians of the 19th century. His History of England remains in print to this day, as do many of his other writings.) "

Should they know better ?

[testharness]

Now, IANAL but the following condition of entry seems strange

9. The counter essay contest committee does not claim any intellectual property rights over any of the essays that are submitted to the contest. We do assume, unless you clearly state otherwise, the non-exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the essays in connection with the contest and post-contest publicity.

Surely, they cannot assume the right to reproduce and distribute, that right must be granted by the author. And it is this assumption that copyright was meant to protect against.

Of course, they could make it a condition of entry that they may reproduce the works, but that is different.

Best Excerpt

[PingXao]

Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841:

I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.

Macaulay is basically saying that most people want to do the right thing, but when onerous laws are passed those laws become de-facto repealed by just about everyone. It lessens the dignity and honor of good people when rules and regulations become so one-sided in favor of special interests that ordinary people start to think there's nothing morally wrong with acting outside those laws and thus become "criminals" overnight. IMO such laws also demean the law itself and the respect which should be accorded to it.

At one time, people just wouldn't sit still for some things. With the general laziness and apathy of the general public (consumers) today, no wonder the special interests are trying so hard.

Re:Best Excerpt

[Speare]

Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. [...] Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. --Thomas Macaulay, 1841

What strikes me here is the use of the word piratical. It is no new thing to consider the wholesale disregard for copyright as "piracy," a theft that has very real connotations on the wages of the copyright holder.

I am no fan of DMCA or SSSCA, but I am also no fan of disregard for copyright. It has its place, and as Thomas Macaulay was saying, if treated properly, ensures income for the popular working artist. The key here is to respect the creator's intent. If you want Metallica songs, pay for the CDs. If you want Stephen King novels, pay for the pages. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your dollars.

Re:I don't get it..

[TheMidget]

If I go and take pictures you tell me to, where and when etc. directed by you with your camera and your film,they are still MY pictures.

This is ridiculous. You mean, you if you go on holidays, you want to have a photo of all of you, and you ask a random stranger to take a group photo of all of you standing in front of some monument ("just press the big button..."), somehow this random stranger now has all rights to the picture? This is ridiculous!

Wedding photos, I can understand: the wedding photographer usually brings his own equipment, and adds creative work (by chosing when and how to shoot pictures), but generalizing this to any situation is somewhat absurd.