While I'm not entirely unsympathetic with the notion that "information should be free," your statements below are rather incoherent. For purposes of analysis, let's talk about a story I report and write myself. Depending on the article and travel involved, I may have spent hundreds of dollars working on it. I am unwilling to donate those efforts to the "public domain" every time; I may later want to sell the article to recoup my costs. Think property rights. (Of course, I admit the need for broad fair use rights as well.) "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote:
Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks
I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces.
I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain."
"De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now.
Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those stories, to distribute them elsewhere?
If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere.
In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one.
Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about,
"Implied a priori contracts should die now"
Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic crypto-icon.
Jim Choate CyberTects ravage@ssz.com