Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

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.)



( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 15th, 2006 11:43 am (UTC)
1) The DMCA is an attempt to control content via protecting content protection in totalitarian ways - this makes it very obsolete in my opinion because enforcing things in such a brutal way is a step backwards in terms of freedom, vision, etc.. Not to say it isn't effective, totalitarian measures usually are effective. In this case it can't be particularly effective because very few countries support it, but it does have an effect in the US.

2) Not familiar with this one

3) I think some of the licenses do have these mechanisms built in. Regardless, if the license doesn't explicitly allow for it either way, suing is always an option :P

[Short disclaimer: I'm really not fond of the GPL]
As much fun as has been made of the connection, the GPL really is based in the principles of communism. In reality, our society *does* look down on those ideals for the most part and regards them as antiquated and repressive. I tend to agree that they're antiquated, but feel free to disagree with me. :)

Feb. 15th, 2006 10:51 pm (UTC)
1. Because it is a law, and people will use what they can to further their own ends. Laws != morals.
2. He has answered it in other works - I believe that his thesis is that programmers who develop GPL software can make a living teaching, configuring, documenting, and being domain experts about that software.
3. That depends on the license of the artistic content - there are licenses for this sort of arrangement right now.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2008

KSU Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GEC) Lab



Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Communities

Fresh Pages


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi