|
Authored by: Wol on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 12:23 PM EST |
No you DON'T want that. It would, for instance, gut the GPL of its teeth :-)
Copyright, at least for say the first two 15 year terms, should be pretty strict
- no *compulsory* licensing - end of!
If, as a singer or novelist or musician or whatever, I *choose* to join a pool
licencing scheme, that's fine. Like for example, I've put my photos on flickr
into the Getty pool. But that is MY choice, as the copyright holder. You - or
Holloywood :-) - or any/everybody else should NOT be able to pay a licencing fee
to some arbitrary licencing group (who probably won't forward me a penny,
anyway!) to be able to use my work. Think of the poor copyright holder! :-)
Once the 15 or 30 year limit is up, then fine, maybe pool licencing is okay. But
it would be interesting :-) to say that if you renew active copyright for the
next two ten-year terms then they aren't covered by compulsory pool terms :-) -
you might be amazed at the number of works that people think are worth paying
for to keep out of the pool :-) I'd actually registrations to be restored (not
just renewed) to take works out of the pool! Any licence granted by the pool
while the work is unregistered remains valid, but re-registering the work stops
new pool licences from issuing. Think of the poor copyright holder :-)
And of course, once the 50 years are up, the twist that only the work's
*creator* can renew the copyright ... well ... that would help stuff enter the
Public Domain nicely :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Preservation - Authored by: Wol on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 01:04 PM EST
- hmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 19 2012 @ 02:19 PM EST
- hmm - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 07:14 AM EST
|
|
|
|