7 Sep
2018
7 Sep
'18
3:11 p.m.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:54:36 +0200
David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> writes:
And who would that be ?
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:22:47 +0200
Anders Hellquist <lau(a)hellquist.net> wrote:
The respective country's bilateral partner of the copyright society
that Sound on Sound had to sign a contract with in order to get into
standard distribution channels. My understanding is the the proposed changes are
like copyright on
steroids. You can not link to articles, files of sites unless you
have explicit permission to do so..
That is in my mind the end of the internet as
concept and a change
towards only controlled sites can provide information.
Let's take a use case to illustrate. If Sound on Sound magazine
does not object to having a public article of theirs being freely
shared, who will then enforce the restriction despite the authors'
will and on what basis ? The artists' will in concrete
matters of copyright is of rather marginal importance since they have
to sign a significant part of their rights over in order to get
coverage.
And of course the world is not made only of Ariana Grande and co.
If the artists would in any manner be a driving force
of
copyright enforcement, extending copyright beyond their death would
be absurd rather than a powerful asset in the hand of the media
industry.
Copyrights usually are lasting a but after.