What is IP and whose interests does copyright protect Re: [LINK] web site choices.

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Roger Clarke wrote:
> At 18:57 +1000 5/9/06, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> 
>> Two things struck me:
> 
> ...
> 
>> 2. the variation in licences
> 
> ...
> 
>> What sort of licence should I assert?
> 
> 
> I'd better address this one straight away.
> 
> The AEShareNet licence set is designed for materials that the owner 
> intends to be available for educational purposes (subject to some 
> not-too-heavy limitations).  If that's a target of your material, I 
> recommend that you make that licence available to visitors, as per my 
> pages, e.g.
> http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/ICEC06.html
> 
> Details are available by clicking on the FfE icon.  There are several 
> other AEShareNet licences, but FfE is most likely what (some) link 
> subscribers would want to use for (some) of their materials.
> 
> (Declaration:  I was Chair of the company that established and runs the 
> AEShareNet licence set, from its inception until a few weeks ago).
> 
> Note that I 'dual license', i.e. I make two different licences available 
> on many of my pages.
> 
> One of the small set of Creative Commons licences ('Some Rights 
> Reserved') is appropriate if you intend fairly free and open use of your 
> materials, not specifically within educational contexts.
> 
> I generally use the tightest / least-liberal CC licence, the 'by-nc-nd' 
> one.  A quick explanation of the several alternatives in this section of 
> a First Monday paper:
> http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/PrePrLic.html#AppCC
> 
> Finally, if you want to keep close control over your material, *don't* 
> use a CC licence.  Instead use an 'All Rights Reserved' style.  The 
> effect is this is to force anyone who wants to make use of your material 
> come to you to ask for a licence, and thereby enables you to match the 
> terms to the circumstances.  (Of course this ignores those people who 
> ignore the assertion of ownership, and just use the material anyway, 
> pretending that the implied licence that is granted my putting the 
> material up on the Web makes it open slather).
> 
> I use an 'All Rights Reserved' approach for a small proportion of my 
> output, which is published on my xamax site.  (All of the material on my 
> ANU site is open-content licensed, and has been since I started the site 
> in the mid-1990s).
> 
> I'd be happy to clarify or enlarge on the above, but that's probably 
> already enough to make most people's eyes glaze.
...
Roger,

My head hurts, but I promise to pay attention as this is something which 
I have been grappliing with and it doesn't get any easier when you move 
to video...though I feel the principles should be the same.

I started to look at the CC licenses but am not convinced by them....

Then I started on the various software licenses and found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License
& http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement  :-)
and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_licenses#Comparisons> :-(

..with video, there is the MPEG patents issue thrown into the mix.

there are also jurisdictional issues...I have just contributed a chapter 
to a dutch publication...which was an interesting negotiation over the 
internet...

My understanding of the Australian/UK and US copyright laws were 
designed to protect the Book Publishing industry.

so, back to webpages...I have a copyright notice stuck on the bottom of 
the Ramin Communications site, to protect them from other IT 
consultants, historians - people who would profit from my work. But at 
the same time, I hope to influence people with the ideas.

Marghanita
-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
Ramin Communications
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: 0414-869202
Email: marghanita at ramin.com.au