Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Sunday August 02 2015, @08:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the better-than-oil-pipeline dept.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/31/copyright_hub_launch/

The web has grown up without letting people own and control their own stuff, but a British-backed initiative might change all that, offering a glimpse of how the internet can work in the future. Their work will all be open sourced early next year.

Britain's much-anticipated Copyright Hub was given ministerial blessing when it finally opened its kimono today, boasting a pipeline of over 90 projects covering commercial and free uses.

A handy new site – Copyright done right – has also been launched, explaining what it offers. The initiative has sparked global interest.

Today, it turns out that most people actually do want what they’re missing from today’s internet: property rights (or property-ish rights) for the digital stuff they post to the interwebs. But many have found that copyright just doesn’t work for them. The Hub aims to build rights-aware layers on top of the internet, so that people can track how what they make public is used, much as DNS added ease of use to naming protocols and VPNs added privacy standards to the basic bare-bones internet.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 02 2015, @05:45PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 02 2015, @05:45PM (#217044) Journal

    So if some big company takes something that you have produced without your permission, makes loads of money, and gives you nothing in return, you are happy with that? I wouldn't be.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 02 2015, @06:26PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 02 2015, @06:26PM (#217058) Journal

    Perhaps you failed to read and comprehend my post. Let me quote the relevant part. "Only if/when someone is using those "intellectual properties" for commercial purposes"

    That WAS the original intent of copyright - not to ensure that anyone would ever make money, but that IF anyone made money, the original author should get a share of that profit.

    That song, "Happy Birthday", which has been contested so hotly for the past few years? Copyright or public domain shouldn't matter one whit to the average individual. You can sing it to your children, you can sing it to your classmates, you can sing it publicly, you can even perform a derivative of it. There are all sorts of things you can do, no matter whether it is copyrighted. What you CANNOT DO, if the copyright claims are upheld, is to use the song commercially, without sharing some portion of the profit with the copyright holder.

    THAT, my friend, is copyright in a nutshell.

    NO ONE ON EARTH has the right or the authority to prevent you from using that song, or any other, as you see fit, unless and until you make some COMMERCIAL USE of it.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 02 2015, @06:57PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 02 2015, @06:57PM (#217064) Journal

      I don't believed that I ever claimed otherwise. And the article is about empowering the everyday man so that he can protect his creations from exploitation by others, including bigger companies.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 02 2015, @07:31PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 02 2015, @07:31PM (#217073) Journal

        Apologies - I was reading your comments out of context. But - I still can't really agree with the concept of "empowering" the little man to enforce his will upon his fellow man. So - you upload an image of your cat - your car - your kids. And, I grab that image, because it's cool. I post it to a blog, where the image kinda supports my ramblings. I do attribute the image to you, but it's there on my blog. And - what? You force me to take it down? I can't go along with that. Yes, of course I can find other images of the cat - a car - or some kids. But your image just happened to catch my attention, and it does happen to support my blog in some way. I'm NOT making any money off of it, it's just an image accompanying my thoughts.

        No, I don't grant you, or anyone else the right to control content that is freely available on the web. You might make an ethical argument against using the image of your kids, and if you were good at it, I would take that image down - the rest would stay.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:06PM (#217124)

          "So - you upload an image of your cat - your car - your kids. And, I grab that image, because it's cool. I post it to a blog, where the image kinda supports my ramblings."

          So you're a lazy asshole unwilling to ask permission for the work of others to be used where you want it to be used.

          "I do attribute the image to you, but it's there on my blog. And - what? You force me to take it down? I can't go along with that. Yes, of course I can find other images of the cat - a car - or some kids. But your image just happened to catch my attention, and it does happen to support my blog in some way."

          Not only are you lazy and a thief, you aren't even able to perform the same function another person did - make a photograph of a subject that is pertinent to the blog post you made.

          According to your chain of thought, I could copy your entire blog, put my name on it and sell it and you would just have to f*ck off.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 03 2015, @05:41AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @05:41AM (#217251) Journal

            Problems you have, with reading comprehension.

            You're going to SELL it? That is commercial use. The moment you accept one thin dime, you lose the protections afforded a private citizen.

            Now - who is the bigger asshole? You, or me?

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 03 2015, @08:19AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @08:19AM (#217285) Journal

          control content that is freely available on the web

          An therein lies the problem. It is only 'freely available' if the license under which it is published says it is. If I put my cat photo on the web with a CC license permitting you to use it, there is no issue. If, however, I put my cat photo on the web with a more restrictive license, and some big business comes along, uses it, and makes money - all without any recognition of my work nor permission for its use by me - then this project will give me some recourse to take legal action against the big company. This project will have published the license, indicated who owns the picture, and big business hasn't got a leg to stand on in court. Now, in the UK, taking someone to court can cost nothing - the loser pays all costs. Therefore, with this sort of support I stand a much better chance of winning my case and succeeding in court to gain recompense.

          The genie is out of the bottle, no-one is going to undo the laws that are currently in place. But giving me some way of taking redress is the best I can hope for.