Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Fair Use and What is Right

As an intellectual property radical, I unfortunately, agree with the lawyers that nit-pick over how many words or bars can be used without permission.  I know too many people who have devoted countless hours to composing, reworking, rehearsing, and playing to empty houses before finally getting a composition into the public eye to allow anybody to use it without proper permission and compensation if asked. 
"Fair use" is simply a lawyer created license to steal.  If something is in the public domain even a rework or reedit becomes the property of the editor.  One might argue how much of the use is from public domain, but if you used the modern version at all you are on shaky ethical if not legal grounds.  

As an example many creators use the Creative Commons license categories for their work.  If they just want to get the meme out there free use is selected, others want attribution only, others restrict modification and reuse, some prohibit any use without permission and compensation. 

You shall not covet take (from the Hebrew) your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.    — Exodus 20:17

  If hesh created it, it belongs to your neighbor.
 When our first book came out on Amazon, it was less than 48 hours later that you could buy a photocopied copy of it at half off - of which we recieved not one penny. Duo

And music appears on YouTube just as fast.  Bands depend on merchandise sales rather than royalties these days.  And/or crowd funding for the album which will be ripped as soon as it appears.  "But think of the exposure!" doesn't pay the bills. 

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Managing Change Management issues strategy tactics best practices

Managing Change Management issues strategy tactics best practices:
There is no limit to the good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.
General George C. Marshall

"There’s another level to this idea, one much more difficult to embrace. Assume for the moment you have a truly brilliant idea, but neither the resources, nor the influence necessary to make “it” happen. What do you do?

If you really want to see the idea take off, then you give it to someone who can make it happen. By “give it”, I don’t mean write up a proposal and hand it to someone else. I mean you identify the person who could make this happen and you bring them to the point where they come up with the idea. To a point where the idea becomes theirs – lock, stock and barrel. You take no credit for it.

Objections to this final step are many. The idea of allowing someone else to take credit for your idea is a difficult one to swallow. Look what I did when credit was stolen from me so long ago… I quit my job. With that deep seated sense of ownership to “credit”, how can I possibly justify the advice of putting others in a position to take credit for your ideas? Because it would be your choice. We can choose to do this when we know that we can’t deliver the final achievement, and the person we’re handing the opportunity to, can."

Lots of stuff here for the intellectual property argument. Who should get Credit for the Rachmaninoff Variations on a theme by Paganini Assume for the sake of argument that the Paganini theme was buried in a otherwise obscure piece, and no credit was given. Ethical? If Paganini was a no name contemporary and Rachmaninoff heard it in a cafe and wrote Variations on a Theme what then? Interesting questions. Further deponent saith not.