Banazîr the Jedi Hobbit (banazir) wrote,
Banazîr the Jedi Hobbit
banazir

  • Mood:
  • Music:

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.)

Thanks,
Banazir
Tags: dmca, eu law, eucd, gnu, gpl, ifpi, intellectual property, mpaa, open content, open source, poll, riaa, royalties, us law
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments