/.'er seeks open access to information that can benefit the public, while protecting the public from those who would exploit personal information for monetary gain. Before you say copyright protects money for artists, it doesn't. The only businesses that are protected by copyright are the distribution companies.
FMI read "The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics of Digital Technology" by Associate Prof. of Law, Raymond Shih Ray Ku. available at Lexis-Nexis
BC seeks to gain money from the creation of artists, see above article, and use personal information that can potentially harm individuals to squeeze even more money out of them.
I think the difference is rather obvious.
Without being able to find the text of the bill and read through it a couple of times, I'm concerned that there's more hidden in there than the news stories would indicate. Without some insight into how the bill would work, how he's proposing enforcement and implementation methods and oversight, what's to keep it from becoming just one more Christmas tree bill with access control features tagged on for good measure?
Slashdot Mirror
FMI read "The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics of Digital Technology" by Associate Prof. of Law, Raymond Shih Ray Ku. available at Lexis-Nexis
BC seeks to gain money from the creation of artists, see above article, and use personal information that can potentially harm individuals to squeeze even more money out of them. I think the difference is rather obvious.
Without being able to find the text of the bill and read through it a couple of times, I'm concerned that there's more hidden in there than the news stories would indicate. Without some insight into how the bill would work, how he's proposing enforcement and implementation methods and oversight, what's to keep it from becoming just one more Christmas tree bill with access control features tagged on for good measure?