>On the Internet, one often sees something like the following
>attached to "creative" postings: "This message may be freely
>distributed, but only if unmodified and not used for commercial
>purposes."
I would like to know how much importance is placed on stating preferences on postings about free distribution with provisos. Is there a general acceptance of this type of message? Has it ever had to stand up in a case yet?
Furthermore if enough 'modification' takes place would not this be a different story and attributable to the most recent modifier?
If a compilation were put together for non commercial reasons (for service to the community for example) would that make it OK to take net postings and re-publish them - with proper acknowledgements but without specific permission? I know this list is protected because it has been recently clearly stated. I assume that such a statement act a sufficient protection and would like to know wording that could be generally appropriate to starting new lists.
Currently re-formatting and compiling are justifiably attributable to 'sweat of brow' and, as such, compensated. However very soon AI or 'fuzzy' search engines will be more generally available where it will be easy to find anything in an amorphous info-mass (what is now considered an info-mess) and reference anything that has not been previously formatted, indexed or 'filed'.
I feel this will have an enormous effect on authors and artists whose work will be able to be referenced in multimedia databases and changed beyond recognition in a matter of seconds.....for...... redistribution?
I ask these questions because believe that this issue is already nearly upon us and needs candid and open discussion by the non-interested and before events can lead to potential injustice.
Jackie Mackay
PHONE: +44 (0)71 490 1609 FAX +44 (0)71 490 4470
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:13 GMT