Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The difference between this and conventional copyright is close to being medieval sophistry. In theory I suppose it's meant to encourage collaborative work, but in practice it's encouraging collaborative work which no one can profit from.

The problem remains - if I create a mash-up and want to sell it legally, I have to contact every originator and get clearance.

In practice, this isn't any different to conventional commercial copyright clearance. It's nice that people can dilettante around with other people's contributions legally without worrying about the copyright cops. But - with the inevitable list of Slashdotted poster-geek exceptions - that's not going to interest most professional artists either way.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 10:56:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you don't want to share, then you are protected by copyright if you mark the work so.

Non-profit collaboration is not always about the works themselves. It can be seen as educative, connecting, liberating, inspiring etc: i.e. values other than financial.

Like ET, the aim is not profitability but enablement.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 03:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series