BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Creator's rights, intellectual property etc.

 
 
Deep Trope
21:07 / 09.08.01
So spinning off from the fanfic thread:

what is owed to the creator of origin of any work of art? What is fair use and what is plagiarism?

How about scientific ideas?

Genes?

Drugs?

Who owns ideas? Can they be owned? And if not, what do we owe those who come up with them? Or who discover theories and properties?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
21:58 / 09.08.01
I guess it depends on if you work for Glaxo Wellcome or not, doesn't it? I know that in print media, it's common to have a clause in your contract - assuming you get one - that states that everything you create on work equipment, or during work hours, or as an offshot of a work project belongs to the company. I would imagine - though I'm not sure - that places sponsoring medical research or drug research would have the same kind of safeguards in place; the company gets the patent at the end of the day.

I'm assuming that it's different for discoveries that aren't concrete, or have a product as an end result; fields like physics for example. In those fields, would the researcher (Hawking or Capra, or whoever) own the copyright to the theory as it appears in work they publish? What are the rules for scientific publishing?

Then again, if there was a way to register things like inertia and gravity - that'd lead to some rather strange advertising.

Gravity™: just do it.
 
 
ynh
16:49 / 10.08.01
Owning Culture

Essential reading.
 
 
Saint Keggers
17:06 / 10.08.01
An amazing story about creators rights and bib buisness... http://www.guerrillanews.com/cocakarma/index.html
 
 
6opow
19:44 / 10.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Rothkoid:
Gravity™: just do it.


[evil thread rot] Or perhaps:
Gravity™: it does you.
[/evil thread rot]
 
 
Molly Shortcake
09:05 / 11.08.01
I don't think that anyone should profit financially from a work you created/have the rights to.

Having said that I think most corporations go waaay too far pursuing copyright infringements. Rap producers started producing their own tracks when licensing fees for samples went throught the roof.

Alot of muscisians consider rap worthless, (not even music really) and felt their grooves were the only reason behind hit songs. Racism and subject matter concerns were a major factor IMO.

Public Enemy was an amazing sample based group. Eventually, instead of using fifty samples a song they could only afford one - and they sell millions of records. Dr. Dre got around this in several ways; if he heard a groove he liked he'd recreate it in the studio and just pay publishing fees. If there was a beat he wanted to use he'd recreate it on a drum machine and just change it enough to satisfy the law.

Corporations have specific employees hired to listen to commercial underground music just so they can sue them for dialogue samples. Rob Zombie now creates all his samples. The Chemical Brothers disquise as many of their samples as they can and pay for the rest. The vast majority of these people don't even make a living off thier music. The music is made out of love, the samples are there to futher the narrative, to critique culture or in reference/homage.

These artists should pay something to the copyright holders if they make commercial products. But surely it could be reasonable, done on a case by case basis.

These things are more than products; they are our culture, our myths, our dreams and fears, our language. For this these companies have no one to blame but themselves.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Ice Honkey ]
 
 
Molly Shortcake
09:51 / 11.08.01
Not all companies are copyright tyrants
many companies who produce first person shooters pack in extras like level editors and skin/model modifiers. Here's Aeon Flux, Animal and Lobo in Quake. It makes me happy. It dosen't hurt anybody or cost them money. It's simply an extention of the world in my (and I suspect many others) head where the Smurfs, Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling and Mel Gibsons Hamlet are all drinking together and shooting Nuke in the Mushroom Kingdom.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:41 / 11.08.01
Lordy, Teela, you don't do things by halves, do you?

So what do people think? I know what the law says, or at least I think I do, but what do we all think?

Me, I'm in favour of a bit of ownership, assuming there's any property in a society at all.
 
 
ynh
05:03 / 12.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
Lordy, Teela, you don't do things by halves, do you?


That would only be half as fun, right? Right? Oh, gawd! Please tell me it would only be half the fun!

But seriously... and in order...

art: you know, depending on who likes it and stuff, and what it says, maybe a decent meal and a flat and stuff like that... in some cases, a radio station...

plagiarism: copy in full of a work with no mention of the author for profit (of any kind)

scientific ideas: funny how these folks are civil most of the time... give credit, mount arguments, all except for the bastard who wrote "Toward a new hermenuetics of quantum gravity."

genes: public-fucking-domain. end of story.

drugs: brand name yes, chemical formula, especially when folks are dying, no.

I'm curious to see what happens regarding celebrity skins and copywrite once the Sims Online goes live. But, if it's okay in online Quake it's prolly gonna be okay there, too.

At present, corporations should not get to own anything. Giving them citizen/individual status was a mistake, and one that costs a lot of "legitimate creators" time and money. Of course, take that away and everything else gets shakey, too.

A cultural producer within some other structure may not need ownership, or may not even deserve it.
 
 
Molly Shortcake
07:29 / 12.08.01
There's a serious court battle going on against reverse enginerring, spured on by some hackers who made DVD software for basic OSs. The corporate argument basicly makes it illegial to figure out how things work.

Tecnically, Napster violates no copyright laws. It's an index, not a pirate service. What users do with it is out of hand. You might as well sue the providing ISP or ID for providing the tools that some kid used to make a Lion-O skin.
 
 
Molly Shortcake
00:41 / 23.08.01
From newscientist.com

Censored music protection research revealed

19:02 14 August 01
Will Knight

A US computer scientist will this week present research revealing key weaknesses in technology developed to stop people illegally copying music.

In April, a lawyer representing the Recording Industry Association of America, which created the watermarking technology, threatened Edward Felton of Princeton University with legal action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) if he made his research public. The RIAA has since said that it never intended to sue.

The DMCA prohibits trafficking or promoting "any technology, product, service, device, component or part" that circumvents copy protection systems. The RIAA has now backed down following a counter lawsuit brought by Felton and his colleagues, alleging that the DMCA was used to restrict their first amendment right to free speech.

Computer scientists are still up in arms about the DMCA. They claim that the Act is being used to control academic free speech.

"Not only in computer science, but also across all scientific fields, sceptical analysis of technical claims made by others, and the presentation of detailed evidence to support such analysis, is the heart of the scientific method," says Felten. "To outlaw such analysis is to outlaw the scientific method itself."


Similar fate


Other computer experts researching copy protection systems say they fear the same fate if they present their work at a US conference. Niels Ferguson, a Dutch computer scientist who discovered a flaw in a digital video system told New Scientist: "The DMCA is a great restriction to my freedom of speech. I could face arrest if I visit the US after my research had found its way into the jurisdiction."

Felton will now present his work at the USENIX security conference in Washington on Wednesday. He plans to broadcast the presentation on the internet to draw maximum attention to the fact that he was forced to keep the work secret earlier in the year.

In late 2000, the RIAA created four different methods of inserting a digital watermark into a piece of music, as part of its Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI). This technology is not in use, but the RIAA had planned to use it to protect digital music online.


Challenge to programmers


A digital watermark is secondary piece of data entangled with digital music and designed to ruin the original file if removed.

The RIAA created a contest, challenging programmers to remove the watermarks without impairing the quality of a digital music file.

Felton says that he discovered a way of beating all four watermarking systems and planned to present his findings at the Fourth International Information Hiding Workshop in Pennsylvania, in April 2001.

Felton and his fellow researchers are not the only ones to have fallen foul of the DMCA. Russian computer programmer Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested in July 2001 shortly after presenting work at a computer security conference in Las Vegas. Sklyarov demonstrated a technique for bypassing the copy protection system used by Adobe to stop duplication of electronic books stored in its eBook format.

Although this is legal in Russia, Sklyarov was arrested for violating the DMCA. He is the first to have been prosecuted under the act.
 
  
Add Your Reply