[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[BKARTS] My last word as well.



I also urge the readers of this group not to rely on Mr. Loop's
incomplete grasp of the use of publishing under particular licenses.

In the software world, we've been doing this for 20 years, but it
appears to be a new and foreign concept to some.

For details go to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ and see the
variety of licenses used by major companies. You can either believe me
or go check out the discussions for yourself, but the use and
specificity of these licenses is taken extremely seriously. The level of
the discussions go far above anything you have ever seen from Mr. Loop.

Some people have begun using those licenses to produce manuals, books
and documentation. Others have looked for new licenses that are
particularly well adapted to books that have both electronic and
physical versions.

See:
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml

and

http://www.bridges.org/general/copyleft.html

to see how Copyright and License work together.

The assertion:
> I would also like to add that groups like Creative Commons do NOT
grant licenses.  You either claim copyright in a work
> you have authored or you don't.  There are groups that encourage free sharing by
> means of such "licenses" but they are not legal licenses--
> they may be a way of disclaiming copyright, but you may do so just as easily do so by
> stating so in your work.

is just flat incorrect and misleading. You can read those things for
yourself, and needn't take my word for any of it.

Mr. Loop did not frame the arguments correctly. The Creative Commons
people don't "Grant" licenses and it was never stated that they do. They
have CREATED licenses that people can employ if they choose to. Read
their site for yourself. You can either take the advice of Lawrence
Lessig, who has argued Intellectual Property issues before the Supreme
Court, or you can listen to Jeffrey Loop, who certainly is his
philosophical and mental equal. Right.

As I said, it's not the false choices of either claiming or disclaiming
copyright; there are many ways you can modify your own use of copyright.
These positions are quite legal, contrary to what Loop said. Go to the
lawyers that represent the Apple Public Source License
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl.php) or the IBM Public License
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php) and tell them that they
have no legal standing because Jeffrey L. Loop said so.

Watch them laugh.

And in closing, let me share this with you:

> Finally, to Mr. Morehouse:  Perhaps if you had an original creative
idea you would not have to keep raiding the ideas of "certain large
media firms" for content. How's that for dancing, you twit.

As I mentioned some time ago, I hold 135 copyrights from original works.
It was in learning about my rights as to those copyrights that led me to
do the investigating I have been sharing with you.

I have had to deal with piracy of my works in seventeen different
countries, I have had to sue a major U.S. firm in the U,K. because of
their infringements on one of my titles, I had to sue a major bank
because they took over production of ten of my titles after their client
went broke and the Bank was not paying me royalties on those sales, I
had to use the FBI to deal with a major CD-ROM manufacturer who shipped
thousands of my disks to clients in various countries two weeks before
they even delivered my own order to me, and so on.

I simply learned these lessons the hard way, by finding out the
difference between what the laws said and what they actually were worth
in the real world.

If you follow some of these thoughts, you might save yourselves the same
loss, pain and aggravation.

If there is a sense here that I do not respect the views of Jeffrey
Loop, it's probably because I have had conversations with at least fifty
lawyers who were vastly better informed than he is on Copyright and
Intellectual Property issues.

I'm saying, if you don't learn to think 'out of the box' on these
subjects, you could well end up finding that the game was rigged in ways
you never suspected until you thought you could sue and win.

In my humble opinion, many lawyers don't want you to know that you have
alternatives.

Think for yourselves. Use Google and check out what's really going on
out there. It's YOUR rights that are in question, and you might want to
know what they are and what they aren't.

Thanks for your patience, and I close my part of this debate.

Craig Morehouse

             ***********************************************
            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
                      <http://www.philobiblon.com>

        Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine
                    <http://palimpsest.stanford.edu>
             ***********************************************


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]