Comments on: Internet Law: 2.5 done (round II on Orphans) https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344 2002-2015 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:13:52 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2 By: Jill Hurst-Wahl https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15704 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:13:52 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15704 (I’m resubmitting this because I didn’t see it show up)

A student today asked if there is a difference between “orphan works” and “orphaned works.” I see that you use both phrases. My assumption is that they are interchangeable. Is that true?

]]> By: Dan R https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15703 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:23:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15703 An interesting take on how these issues may relate to claims by various groups of exclusive control over historic and/or cultural heritage was developed by David Lowenthal at spiked-culture last year: http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAFCC.htm

]]> By: jh https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15702 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:57:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15702 icecow this one made me chuckle and wince:

  • Copyright is good. I can look you right in the eye and say the world should value all the works I’ve produced more than I should value the works the world has made freely available for me to consume.

    • cheers

    ]]>         By: icecow https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15701 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:07:14 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15701 I feel belligerent as I re-read what I wrote, but if the same things were said in a court they’d become law (or have already). That was my singing-to-the-choir off-topic point.

    ]]>         By: icecow https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15700 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:35:27 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15700 As long as air remains free the communists are still winning.

    ]]>         By: jh https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15699 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:12:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15699 Michael Wesch interview
    http://battellemedia.com/archives/003386.php

    ]]>         By: jh https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15698 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:20:54 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15698 Heres a group thinking about information as an ecology. KEI(CPTech) This is a link to the award theyve just won. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g4rg7
    “New ways of sharing information over the Internet are now rapidly expanding education and development opportunities, and creating vast new business opportunities for those who understand the new knowledge ecosystems.”
    They suggest:
    -Creating value from open standards,
    -Expanding access to scholarly and scientific research,
    -The sharing and repurposing of information in new knowledge
    communities,
    -Knowledge as a shared asset and knowledge creation as collaboration, rather than a commodity, and
    -Using prizes rather than prices to stimulate drug development.

    ]]>         By: icecow https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15697 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:46:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15697 It’s hard enough keeping up with all the good free podcasts, web news articles, information-driven forums, and amazing home-brewed youtube videos. Abolishing copyright would just make things worse. Everyone would be completely saturated in knowledge and have no time to write. The creation of new media works would entirely cease to a halt, and the world’s minds would become entrapped in to the obsolete ideas of the past.

    People would wander aimlessly through the flood of knowledge, and start indulging in a ultra-wide range of different materials. The TV industry would collapse and people would no longer be thinking the identically same thing at the exact same time. Even if we figured out how to inject manditory-viewable commercials in to the freely availible media different people would see a wide range of conflicting laundry detergent commercials. Noone would be able to agree on which laundry detergent to buy, defeating the whole point of knowing which detergent is best. However, if there were only one monopolistic TV conglomerate there would be no confusion on which laundry detergent to buy. Though, some debate is needed so an Ogilopogy is in order. Anything beyond that would and people would not galvanize on which laundry detergent was best.

    Copyright is good.
    I can look you right in the eye and say the world should value all the works I’ve produced more than I should value the works the world has made freely availible for me to consume. For me not to be compensated would be a crime, and those criminals should be (they already are, woohoo!) fined years worth of pay. The pay should be given to me(yip, yip, yip), and the criminals should serve prison time(yee ha!) at tax payers expense. I’m a tax payer, damnit; I’m entitled.

    ]]>         By: icecow https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15696 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:15:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15696 I respect McJobs dedication to provide low-cost/high yeilding food, however, making food inaccessible to consumers increases (not decreases) the value of food. That value can then be passed on to the consumers.

    ]]>         By: icecow https://archives.lessig.org/?p=3344#comment-15695 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:51:29 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_law_25_done_round_ii.html#comment-15695 Copyright keeps the world’s treasure trove of diverse views out of the hands of law abiding terrorists.

    ]]>