Comments on: APIG DRM Inquiry: Should legislation be changed to make Creative Commons effective? http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/02/apig-drm-inquiry-should-legislation-be-changed-to-make-creative-commons-effective/ Protecting your rights in the digital age Sat, 17 May 2008 01:00:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Kevin Marks http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/02/apig-drm-inquiry-should-legislation-be-changed-to-make-creative-commons-effective/#comment-218 Kevin Marks Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:36:51 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/?p=46#comment-218 These are designed to work with current copyright law, and involve a fair degree of complication to make them work legally. Changes in copyright law to reinstate the registration requirement, or to revert to shorter, more defensible terms to clarify public domain status of orphaned works would be advantageous to these licenses. These are designed to work with current copyright law, and involve a fair degree of complication to make them work legally. Changes in copyright law to reinstate the registration requirement, or to revert to shorter, more defensible terms to clarify public domain status of orphaned works would be advantageous to these licenses.

]]> By: Suw Charman http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/02/apig-drm-inquiry-should-legislation-be-changed-to-make-creative-commons-effective/#comment-207 Suw Charman Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:10:38 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/?p=46#comment-207 Whilst you can continue discussing this post, any comments posted after this one will not be included in the ORG public consultation paper. Whilst you can continue discussing this post, any comments posted after this one will not be included in the ORG public consultation paper.

]]> By: Peter Clay http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/02/apig-drm-inquiry-should-legislation-be-changed-to-make-creative-commons-effective/#comment-191 Peter Clay Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:44:00 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/?p=46#comment-191 I don't see why CC should need legal changes to be effective, as it's purely voluntary and built on existing copyright law. Astonishingly, I agree with Mr Coxall that copyright libraries shouldn't retain DRM'd material; doing so is a total waste of time and money in any case as it will die and become inaccessible within a decade or so once the system it was built on becomes obsolete. I don’t see why CC should need legal changes to be effective, as it’s purely voluntary and built on existing copyright law.

Astonishingly, I agree with Mr Coxall that copyright libraries shouldn’t retain DRM’d material; doing so is a total waste of time and money in any case as it will die and become inaccessible within a decade or so once the system it was built on becomes obsolete.

]]> By: Martin Coxall http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/02/apig-drm-inquiry-should-legislation-be-changed-to-make-creative-commons-effective/#comment-156 Martin Coxall Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:02:13 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/?p=46#comment-156 Copyright libraries should be forbidden from retaining DRM'd material. To do otherwise would legitimise DRM, and we all think that's bad, right? Martin Copyright libraries should be forbidden from retaining DRM’d material.

To do otherwise would legitimise DRM, and we all think that’s bad, right?

Martin

]]> By: Simon Gibbs http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/02/apig-drm-inquiry-should-legislation-be-changed-to-make-creative-commons-effective/#comment-151 Simon Gibbs Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:06:35 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/?p=46#comment-151 The law should be written to support copyright owners that wish to licence their content on share-alike terms and on terms requiring attribution.. Whether or not the law is already written this way is a question for lawyers. Perhaps we APIG would like to get some lawyers in to inquirw into this area? Perhaps ORG could arrange something like that? Share-alike and attribution requirements, when infringed, should not be treated as second-class infringements. The law should be written to support copyright owners that wish to licence their content on share-alike terms and on terms requiring attribution.. Whether or not the law is already written this way is a question for lawyers. Perhaps we APIG would like to get some lawyers in to inquirw into this area? Perhaps ORG could arrange something like that?

Share-alike and attribution requirements, when infringed, should not be treated as second-class infringements.

]]> By: Suw Charman http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/02/apig-drm-inquiry-should-legislation-be-changed-to-make-creative-commons-effective/#comment-149 Suw Charman Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:42:40 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/?p=46#comment-149 The main points aren't my points, they are those made by the APIG inquiry, so your comments are a good push back on the language of their questions. The main points aren’t my points, they are those made by the APIG inquiry, so your comments are a good push back on the language of their questions.

]]> By: Khalid Yaqub http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2005/12/02/apig-drm-inquiry-should-legislation-be-changed-to-make-creative-commons-effective/#comment-148 Khalid Yaqub Sat, 03 Dec 2005 03:32:37 +0000 http://www.openrightsgroup.org/?p=46#comment-148 You should probably say "<i>new</i> legislation" rather than just "legislation" and "additional support of the law" instead of just "support of the law". Many people often forget that "copyleft" is not something which opposes copyright, but actually depends on and works in tandem with copyright. In an environment where many entrenched players feel the need to smear "copyleft" and Creative Commons as some sort of communist/IP-destroying concept, it's important to drive this point home. What would be more useful would be to ask if there are cases where copyleft/Creative Commons was insufficient in providing the intended level of protection+openness, and if so, is legislation the right way to fill in such gaps. You should probably say “new legislation” rather than just “legislation” and “additional support of the law” instead of just “support of the law”. Many people often forget that “copyleft” is not something which opposes copyright, but actually depends on and works in tandem with copyright. In an environment where many entrenched players feel the need to smear “copyleft” and Creative Commons as some sort of communist/IP-destroying concept, it’s important to drive this point home.

What would be more useful would be to ask if there are cases where copyleft/Creative Commons was insufficient in providing the intended level of protection+openness, and if so, is legislation the right way to fill in such gaps.

]]>