Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin-c
Hmm, following this line of thought, in order to create anything 'private' you'd need to forgo public education? It seems to me that what you're proposing is anarchy-a social system in which everybody is free to impose their own rules on everybody else, to the extent they are able to, whether by physical force or mental coercion (aka persuasion).
Not my cup of tea, at all.
|
I don't see why what I suggested would be anarchy. Could you clarify? What I intended to be describing was our current system, in which copyrighted works eventually become public domain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Applying the analogy, it would depend on where the author did the writing/who he was writing for. If done for a public entity, or with public resources, it would be considered a public document. If done themselves, or for a private institution, that did not use public resources, the document would be private. But the document could be done as a private project, then offered to the public for purchase, essentially making it "public-access."
This doesn't mean it can't still have restrictions on what the public can or cannot do... for instance, to vandalize the work, or to refuse to pay whatever (reasonable) compensation the author demands for access.
Drawing from public experiences does not necessarily make the document public, IMO, any more than land that benefits from blown seedlings to establish its garden cannot still be private land.
|
I disagree. While drawing from public experiences does not make a work
immediately public, because the author contributes his or her own efforts to construct the work, I also think that failing to acknowledge the extent to which we draw on public commons leads directly to the situation we see with Disney, et al, trying to extend copyright into perpetuity.
(As for the seeds blowing over and landing in your yard, ask Monsanto whether that creates any obligation on your part...
)