Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
That's just factually wrong and rather obviously so. google dedicated to public domain. Of course, you could be using the True Scotsman fallacy by claiming any work released by the author into the public domain must not be worth anything.
Not to say that the Internet Archive isn't rather obviously breaking the law and seems rather unlikely to find a sympathetic judge. It does seem that they were deliberately looking to be sued. No idea what they thought they were going to accomplish.
|
Read again.
I'm not talking about creator's choosing Creative Commons or any of the OpenSource licenses. Those creators are exercising *their* right under the law. And I explicitly excluded them. They are part of tbe system the IA thinks they can obviate. They can charge whatever they want, including nothing. They created it, they own tbe copyright. *They* are entitled to do anything they want with it.
I'm talking about the online chatterers and "activists".
And the people who listen to them and buy that hooey.
Those aren't entitled to "public domain" somebody else's property just because "information wants to be free" or because they can make money off sleazy ads on a sire ful of torrents. Pirates are pirates however tbey style themselves.