February 13th, 2006


RIAA/DMCA trilogy, Part 3: riddle me these questions three

1. Disregarding for a moment the ethical aspect of whether the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is right-thinking: if it's really so obsolete and ineffectual, why do its sponsors and their litigators still use it?
2. How come Richard M. Stallman never really answered the question of "won't programmers [content creators in general] starve?" in the GNU Manifesto?
3. If you used open-content artwork, music, foley artist audio clips, and stock digital video in a game or indie movie, are these royalty-free by definition, or is there some mechanism by which the content creator can still specify that he or she deserves a certain percentage of your profits? How legally binding would this be if you agreed to it by downloading the open-content work?

Please feel free to discuss.

(Context: I'm trying to evaluate for myself whether licenses such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) are really more modern in their authors' thinking about IP than closed-content licenses.)