[NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill

[Michael Szpakowski]

Try reading what I wrote. I defended nothing - I questioned the whole concept of copyright. 
<someone who knows what
 "a lot of us" are thinking>
I think what I said was probably just a statement of fact as far as this list is concerned; I could be wrong. I'm aware it's not a mainstream view.
<across the pond>
I don't know what pond divides Norfolk from Cambridgeshire & Essex. Bit more thinking & investigating before talking perhaps Bob :)
m.

--- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole <bobcatchpole at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> From: bob catchpole <bobcatchpole at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
> To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 7:27 PM
> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> 
> > I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that
> it's copyright tout court that's indefensible.
> 
> Fascinating stuff... I describe an ongoing fiasco, our two
> friends across the pond go on defending it... It's
> possible to see how something as awful as the Orphan Works
> Bill could even be contemplated over there.
> 
> It's invaluable to hear from someone who knows what
> "a lot of us" are thinking...
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael Szpakowski <szpako at yahoo.com>
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 6:45:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
> 
> *Why defend the indefensible?*
> 
> I think a lot of us here lean towards the view that
> it's copyright tout court that's indefensible.
> michael
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 5/18/08, bob catchpole
> <bobcatchpole at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > From: bob catchpole <bobcatchpole at yahoo.co.uk>
> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
> > To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed
> creativity" <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> > Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008, 5:10 PM
> > Hi Rob,
> > 
> > Why defend the indefensible?
> > 
> > Rob Myers wrote:
> > 
> > > Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line
> with
> > the rest of the world.
> > 
> > Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean
> anything
> > unless the work is registered. What kind of right is
> that?
> > 
> >
> http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html
> > 
> > > The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still
> pays
> > damages, but that they do so fairly.
> > 
> > That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if
> the
> > work isn't registered. ONLY in the States!
> > 
> > > The registry system is optional
> > 
> > The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation
> allows
> > infringers to use your work with impunity. 
> > 
> > > The registry system is optional and is designed
> to
> > build on services like DACS (I forget the US
> equivalent) 
> > 
> > A registry system ONLY exists in the States. DACS, a
> > designers and artists association in the UK, is likely
> > horrified at the Orphan Works Bill.
> > 
> > Actually, the American registry system is a form of
> state
> > intervention in the market place that isn't
> tolerated
> > anywhere else.
> > 
> > Bob.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> > <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, 18 May, 2008 3:02:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill
> > 
> > bob catchpole wrote:
> > > Rob Myers wrote:
> > > 
> > >  > Registration only affects damages where
> > copyright is infringed.
> > > 
> > > So if someone uses your work without permission
> and
> > you haven't 
> > > registered you're not entitled to damages.
> ONLY in
> > the States. 
> > 
> > It is possible to register afterwards and claim
> damages on
> > the basis of 
> > that but I believe this has issues.
> > 
> > > Why not 
> > > come into line with the rest of the world? 
> > 
> > Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with
> the
> > rest of the world.
> > 
> > > Just get rid of the need (and 
> > > expense, $30 a time) to register.
> > 
> > You can register copyrights in the UK. Establishing
> the
> > date of 
> > publication can be useful.
> > 
> > > Currently many working photographers in America
> are
> > compelled to do the 
> > > same as Seth Resnick: "Every image that I
> shoot
> > is registered before it 
> > > ever leaves my office."  To us outside the
> States
> > this seems ludicrous -
> > > time-consuming, expensive and a perversion of an
> > automatic universal 
> > > right. And in the Land of the Free!...
> > > 
> > >  > The purpose behind the “visual
> registries”
> > provisions is to help 
> > > artists keep
> > >  > ownership information associated with their
> > works...
> > > 
> > > To help artists? Artists are automatically owners
> of
> > their work. Nowhere 
> > > else do they need to register the fact.
> > 
> > Artists receive copyright on completion of the work in
> the
> > US the same 
> > as everywhere else, and this copyright allows them to
> > prevent other 
> > people from copying their work (and thereby profiting
> from
> > it) the same 
> > as everywhere else.
> > 
> > Orphan works *are* a genuine problem for society that
> need
> > tackling, 
> > even if the current bill is not perfect. The bill can
> be
> > improved, and 
> > Public Knowledge have suggestions for this.
> > 
> > The bill is not pro-corporate. Currently only big
> > corporations can 
> > afford the risk of publishing old work with unknown
> > copyright status. 
> > Damages could wipe out an individual or a smaller
> > organization. The 
> > Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays
> damages,
> > but that 
> > they do so fairly.
> > 
> > The registry system is optional and is designed to
> build on
> > services 
> > like DACS (I forget the US equivalent) that enforce
> > copyrights and fees 
> > under the current system. Most professional artists
> and
> > designers 
> > already belong to such a scheme.
> > 
> > - Rob.
> > _______________________________________________
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> >
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> > 
> > 
> >      
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> > A Smarter Email
> >
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html_______________________________________________
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> >
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> 
>      
> __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html_______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour