I hear what you're saying. The whole point of me posting poetry and short stories on Lit-Net was for a learning exercise. Perhaps I don't need to do that so much. I can ask the mods to remove my previous works.
Printable View
I hear what you're saying. The whole point of me posting poetry and short stories on Lit-Net was for a learning exercise. Perhaps I don't need to do that so much. I can ask the mods to remove my previous works.
Well... I did, but between you and I... Do you think it will stop plagiarism?????Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
No. Someone posted on a poem I wrote a while back if they could paste it on their facebook account. I didn't reply because I figured that an answer of no would not stop them anyway. I have all my posted works on a USB but I have to admit I also have a folder of favourite poems by other Lit-Nutters. However, I wouldn't dream of pretending I wrote them. What's the point?
From a rebellious perspective, why should a few rats diminish the enjoyment of the majority?
True that... But once bitten, twice shy. I stay online, to keep an eye on my kids and to help my literary skills. (And believe me I need all the help I can get) And maybe play a few games along the way. But as far as uploading work is concerned... A big fat "sad face" for me. It will never happen again.
xo
But there really isn't because something that you and I may view as wrong, could be completely right to someone else and we would be viewed as the immoral ones. Because of that alone, it's impossible to have any kind of 'Moral Law'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
For example, I have always been upped on anti-racist action, and for a while was part of ARA activities to some degree, and got enough scare out of the Aryan Brotherhood to take leave for a while and keep my head down. But I've always viewed racism as 'immoral' and you would think that was a general perspective, but take a look through stormfront dot com and you will see other wise. To those lads I am just as disgusting and immoral as I view them.
This same concept is universal with every belief. The lesser of the lot may be Rape and.. Rape.. But even then there are exceptions which annihilate rape being immoral by given.
Morals are opinions, personal beliefs that we put into practice.
I have a huge advantage over most here when it comes to the issue of copyright in that I am not a writer but an artist. The traditional visual arts have still yet to face the reality of mechanical reproduction. The author must deal with the fact that there is essentially no difference between his or her original manuscript (with the exception of any editing) and the copy printed by Harpers or the copy transmitted illegally across the net. The same is true of music. The technology has reached such a state that the copy of the music burned from a disc and transmitted across the net through any number of lossless formats sounds exactly the same as the original disc... or the master from which these were produced to all but the most anal of audiophiles... and even then... considering the hearing abilities of humans... I suspect this is but an illusion.
The traditional fine arts (painting, sculpture, drawing, intaglio print, ceramics, etc...), however, are quite removed from this. Certainly one can take a photograph of a painting or a sculpture or a tapestry... but ultimately this photograph... no matter how accurate the color and how detailed, remains far removed from the original. One sense this immediately when standing before a real painting. Walter Benjamen in his landmark essay argued that the only difference was that the "original" had an "aura"... a feeling we imposed upon it as a result of our recognizing that this was the very object that Rembrandt's hands touched. Certainly this is true of a first folio of Shakespeare or an autograph score by Mozart. Such works take on a greater value as a result of the fact that they were touched by the "master's hand" (as it were)... but ultimately Shakespeare's first folio and Mozart's autograph score to Don Giovanni is in no way aesthetically superior. In some ways, my later copy of Shakespeare complete with critical commentary and notes may actually be better. There is, however, an aesthetic difference between the most actual art objects, and the mechanical reproductions and this difference goes far beyond the idea of the "aura".
When I first recognized that I was drawn most to the visual arts, I spent hours reading up on the great painters of the past and looking at their paintings in reproductions. To a certain extent I understood that Rubens' paintings were not 3X5" as they were in the books but rather 9x15 feet... yet I did not fully register this until I stood before one of these huge canvases and was able to appreciate the gestural paint application, the way that one could "read" how the image was built up of layers, the relationship of this huge canvas to my own body, and the true colors that were there which no camera could capture because a camera always seeks to harmonize the image by "evening out" the contrasts.
I remember the first time I stood before an actual Vermeer painting:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5030/...dd95d7bd_z.jpg
in spite of the fact that the painting was almost no larger than it was in reproduction, I was absolutely stunned at the exquisite surface... the painting seemed as if it were made of liquid gems... the result of Vermeer's endless layers of translucent paint... and the colors were astounding... what all seems black or brown or gray in reproduction glows with an almost Impressionistic intensity of color.
Bonnard was a similar revelation. I had looked at him for some time, but thought that his work was but a weak homage to Degas... until I visited the Phillips Collection in Washington D.C. Coming upon this painting (and at least half a dozen others) I was stunned by the application of paint:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/...d8eace9f_z.jpg
The painting was like a tapestry constructed of the greatest variety of paint handling... everything from the mere whispers and veils of paint... even areas of bare canvass... to the richest blobs and swirls of impastos that all dance before your eyes as you draw near... yet fall perfectly in place as you back up.
Even today I can be stunned at how different the real art works are from the images I have constructed based on reproductions. I have never been a great fan of Abstract Expressionism or the work of Mark Rothko, however a couple years back I happened upon an exhibition of his suite of red and burgundy "Seagrams Paintings". Having worn myself out from walking all day through the National Gallery and the Hirschhorn, a sat down on a bench surrounded by the Rothko paintings:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/...7e7a7b692f.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/...e4b3163b08.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/...6f67b5fee6.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/...d18140592a.jpg
Sitting for some time I was struck at how contemplative and quiet the experience of these paintings was... not unlike a Japanese Zen Garden. And yet the experience was also clearly elegiac with all the blood red, scarlet, carmine, vermillion and sienna... and all that they suggested.
It is the experience of the "original" art object that has protected the traditional fine arts from the grasp of the mass media... in spite of all the hype and gross commodification of the market. The fine arts remain, for better of worse, something of a luxury object. I suspect that as the huge profits to be made from the recordings of music die out, it may be that musicians discover that live music becomes the greatest source of their income. One also wonders whether or not we might see a similar venue develop for the writers. Certainly Shakespeare recognized that the live theater was a far more lucrative source of income than any form of publication offered at that time. Dickens, among others, recognized the possibility of the serialized publication. One wonders at the possibilities for such today?
You've precisely hit on something there StLukes - the unique object with a self-inherent quality, and value merely an estimate
But surely in the visual art world the infringement of copyright is called forgery, and some examples have gained value in their own right
I wonder how many unique art objects have been destroyed in the path of history for which we possess no record because no-one copied them, which is akin to the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria - what exactly have we lost!?
Bach's widow selling ff his manuscripts by the pound
Michelangelo's drawings being trampled into the mud by stormtroopers who saw them 'only' as drawings (actually probably less - just pieces of paper)
Maybe some victims should be thankful that their work and ideas live on in some other form rather than lost completely - I honestly believe it's the isolation the lonely writer suffers in order to create that gives them a skewed perspective on the absolute value of their creativity ('I've sacrificed so much for my self-indulgence!')
Or to put it another way - 'Genius is that which no-one DARE copy' - do your utmost best and establish a reputation along the way, then you'll be safe (or do your absolute worst and you'll still be safe - but only because you don't care)
The only way to ensure that no-one's stealing your work on-line is to goggle it unique line by line, unique phrase by phrase - and then you'll probably find it in the forum where originally posted, or in the referencing board readers
The trouble with being a writer is you get the chance and choose to voice the fact you're getting ripped off to a wider audience - everyone feels like they're getting ripped off at some point - just like cracking a joke at a party and then you see someone go off and take credit for it in another group - what to do? Drink a beer!
When crap like the Wasteland gets repeatedly cited as somehow groundbreaking and on a level beyond everything - I'm always reminded that good critics don't make good artists, poets, musicians, etc and vice versa, but some are neither critics nor nor artists - TS. Idiot forgot to choose a side, and now witness the modern day equivalent in Clive James whose poems are fairly average in my view - but because of his reputation in other media some choose to praise them far beyond deserving
Who is he? Socrates - or Bozo the Clown?
Do you really want people to read you words? then prepare to get ripped off, because it will happen regardless, and then rip off someone else* because corruption is inherent in the system from the top down
If you've only got one book in you, then surprise - join the club of J.K. (do a search on H.P. and plagiarism) and Wells, and all of the other thieves that have ever built a reputation courtesy of their audience's ignorance
I think if you are J.K. the least you could do is invest in the replanting of forests - but she's strangely quiet on that issue, as are all best selling (read 'successful') authors (maybe not David Suzuki) and publishing magnates the world over - these 'people' are happily ripping off what is ours and belongs to everyone, and have been doing it since before history
Who originally came up with the words 'the' and 'a' - perhaps we should footnote them more often than we do, and don't get me started on those German letterfests (books in themselves some of them)
*I wouldn't and don't condone the act, but look up from your puters and see what's going on - if you really like the artist, help support them, but if your unplayably scratched cd/dvd isn't automatically replaced by either the artist nor publisher (hah! as if!) well, what to do? Actually that change from vinyl to digital, why wasn't I consulted? Why was I expected to repurchase what I'd already purchased in a different form? Don't tell me it was the manufacturing cost!
**I don't think I've been plagiarised anywhere else on the net, and apart from a few who change my unique ideas to suit themselves, sufficiently disguised to make them seem different - but never has anyone stood up and pointed this out on my behalf - and why do I remain silent? Because maybe one day I'll copy them? Who knows..? (Probably not!)
This thread has turned awesome.
There has never been an inherent problem with using someone's idea in your own work. The problem comes about when one takes someone's work and presents it as their own - and this is more in line with the textbook definition of plagiarism. So, since I highly doubt that Raphael expects us to believe that he invented the idea of the three graces, I don't think we can say he (or anyone else who is using the concept) is "plagiarizing" it. On the other hand, if you're competitor architect down the street steals your building concept and presents it as his own (an issue someone I know has encountered more than once), then that is quite a problem, and, mind you, one that happens quite often. Therefore, most of the "examples" Stlukes has given are pretty much meaningless, except perhaps the Fairy [sic] example.
While inside the bubble of academia copyright laws may only seem like a hindrance to art, outside, many artists would at best not be able to continue their career and at worst be screwed without them (and some are even screwed with them). Plagiarism is a problem that is, with all our technology, greater now than ever, especially for writers and photographers..... I have to go, will finish this later, maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
First of all, it's interesting (a bit exciting) that Rothko is mentioned. For perhaps half-a-decade, this non-art expert had an infatuation with art (due to some art history classes and a PBS series). For me, Rothko became a favorite, and I had a large print (eventually two) hung on the living room wall, right where I faced during yoga. I was eventually convinced by someone who knew more about "interior decorating" that it didn't always create the best mood, and I eventually took it down. In a way, I figured, maybe I really had had enough of it myself. Anyhow, I also spent significant time at the Rothko room at the National Gallery, and was sort of proud that I had managed to appreciate something so seemingly.... difficult? Anyhow, I'm including this anecdote partly because it has led me to realize that I paid money for that print, and it had (over time, years...) a much more profound affect on me than those days I visited that Rothko room. Perhaps a poor testament to my art appreciation, but... I don't mean to contradict the point about the importance of the original (I certainly would've taken the original over the print), but the nostalgia eventually got sidetracked, and perhaps compelled me to include the point about the print, sorry.
Touring and Copyright
Anyhow, second of all, touring has always been an important source of money for a lot of musicians--often the most important part. Groups selling tens of thousands of albums in years past might have been lucky to break even, after the record companies got their share and recouped various production and promotional expenses. The issue is: do we want to support the existence of copyright laws and the idea of intellectual property?
If not, then fine. I mean, I completely disagree--but fine, I can understand. However, if we are willing to recognize the usefulness (and "fairness", I'll say) of copyright (once the legislation is gotten "right"), then there is no need at all to assume that a future of unregulated piracy awaits us, and that artists will have no chance at getting appropriate compensation for efforts that are enjoyed by people using digital media. The hardware landscape is changing, and it is becoming easier for people to enjoy media in a way that most of us are comfortable with--by checking samples, and making purchases on specially-designed devices, in controlled and convenient (and relatively more secure) environments. The increasing irrelevance of the old bloated and pampered music music companies gives new artists a great chance to more directly benefit from their recorded performances. A musician can expect to receive more than half of the money spent on a single purchased at iTunes.
And frankly, for me and at least, say, 80% of the people I know who enjoy music, recorded music is FAR MORE essential than live performance. I've probably only met a handful that would choose the ability to attend live shows over owning the recordings they love, if they could only have one or the other. I can't at all see the logic behind why people like me (and, I think, most people in the U.S.) who enjoy recorded music, should feel that the musicians need to do some shows if they really think they deserve money for their music (money that wouldn't be coming from me, because I'd 99% of the time rather skip the concert).
This isn't a case of buggy whip makers needing to find a new craft because theirs is no longer useful--it's a case of technology making it simple to devalue creativity, or disempower the creators of media. Who benefits, when we do this? Some people associated with the technological infrastructure. (Hey, I just discovered Ska music! I need a new hard-drive! More bandwidth, new devices!). And "consumers", I guess, if they really think the musicians deserve nothing from them, and the same variety of musicians still continue to put out music of the same quality and quality for them.
No need to throw our hands in the air
Continued efforts against explicitly pirate sites, and against cases of copyright infraction at other less focussed peer-to-peer networks have plenty of potential for being ultimately successful (to some degree, at least successful enough), especially with the public becoming more familiar with other ways of getting music, TV, movies, and books digitally. I don't blame anyone for "sticking it to the man" and forgoing expensive CDs for just a few songs here and there; or for downloading a cracked piece of software, designed and priced for professional company use, just so that one can become qualified to use it, and improve one's career prospects. But where these situations with digital media/software improve (or must it be always be hopeless?), and the efficiencies of internet sales take effect (and some other approaches are adopted to ease some of these problems), I really think people have less reason to cling to the dehumanizing notion of a worship towards efficiency for the machines (against the encouragement and rewarding of human creativity); the ridiculous notion that "information wants to be free" (as if it were a human); and the idea that blurred lines mean there somehow can't be huge swaths of clear copyright infringement (and non-infringement). Those arguments, though quite interesting, can ultimately end up as parlour tricks (in the wrong hands), misdirection disguised as profound and conclusive insight.
Protecting piracy isn't the same as protecting democracy or freedom, or saving us from chilling forms of monitoring. The monitoring is happening, pedophiles take note.
Stlukes, it seems like you don't know the definition of plagiarism.
Oh please enlighten me, oh brilliant one.:rolleyes: As someone who spent several years working with collage I spent a good deal of time researching the copyright laws and their implications for the visual arts.
Part of the problem is that the government has not spelled out where the line is to be drawn. How much can you "borrow" before allusion or appropriation becomes plagiarism? According to the strict interpretation of the law the answer is nothing. A work which draws upon another work in any way is considered in legal terms "derivative" and only the original artist or the owner of the copyright has the right to create a derivative work of art. With the exception of that which is spelled out in the "fair use" laws, the very act of appropriation... regardless of the intention or purpose is illegal. By this strict interpretation, virtually the whole of collage, montage, Joseph Cornell, Andy warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, and the jazz pieces that "quote" well-known popular standards would be deemed illegal. Because the law is so broad, there have been endless ridiculous lawsuits brought about. Without clear defined limits, the only way to test what is or is not illegal is through the courts.
There has never been an inherent problem with using someone's idea in your own work. Are we going to rebuke Dante for his incessant alluding to the Bible, Virgil, Statius, Aquinas, etc.?
Obviously Dante faced no such problems (as is the case with most of the artists I cited) for the simple reason that he was working prior to copyright law. If we take things into the present, however, do you honestly think that a contemporary writer could get away with employing characters out of a Disney movie or from the Harry Potter novels without the very real possibility of facing legal action? How is this different from Shakespeare using characters of the Montagues and Capulets?
The problem comes about when one takes someone's work and presents it as their own - and this is more in line with the textbook definition of plagiarism.
There is no question as to whether simply taking another's artistic creation and presenting it as one's own without any real change amounts to plagiarism. But that is not what current copyright law stipulates. Take, for example, this instance (gleaned from ArtBusiness.com site: http://www.artbusiness.com/reprosuit.html ):
Artists who realize that their art is being used without their permission almost always assume that their artistic copyright has been violated and that they must take corrective action, legal or otherwise.
Treating every such incident as infringement and legally actionable, however, is not necessarily a good idea. Several years ago, for example, an artist saw one of her paintings hanging on the set of a popular television show. She filed suit against the show's producers based on the fact that she had not given them permission to use her art. She won the suit, but in doing so, an argument can be made that she made life more difficult rather than easier for her fellow artists.
The television show's lead actor happened to be an art collector. One way that he expressed his support for the arts and for the artists in his collection was to hang their art on the sets of his shows. He did not show their art to make money or to save the costs of having to use prop-art instead. He showed it to honor the artists, pay them tribute, and encourage people to buy art; he did not show it for personal gain.
True, he neglected to ask permission to show the art, and perhaps he should have asked, but imagine how complicated constructing a Hollywood set would be if the producers had to ask every single company or individual whose products or creations appeared on-screen for permission. In any event, the judgement in this lawsuit caused the actor as well as other collectors in similar situations to pull back from showing their art in public. Now, less art by fewer artists is seen in high-profile circumstances due to fears that the artists may take legal action. The ripple effect here is that when people don't get exposed to original art, they're not inclined to buy it.
The situation becomes further confused if we recognize that virtually every man-made object is protected under copyright law of some form or another. Do we expect a film producer to get permission for the use of every piece of clothing, sign, or architectural design that might show up in a street scene? Must the painter who employs a can of Coke in his or her still-life first get permission from the soft-drink giant? If he or she wishes to avoid any chance of legal problem, the answer right now is "yes."
So, since I highly doubt that Raphael excepts us to believe that he invented the idea of the three graces, I don't think we can say he is "plagiarizing."
I don't think that Warhol intended that we think he invented the image of Marilyn or Elvis. Indeed, the intention was quite the reverse. He most assuredly wanted the viewer to recognize his source. The same is true of Eliot's Wasteland or of the teenager who was selling collages that parodied the work of Damien Hirst. Intention is irrelevant under copyright law... with the exception of that which qualifies as "fair use"... and the "fair use" laws are not overly clear. An artist may insist that his or her use of Mickey Mouse or Spiderman in a painting was intended as parody or social commentary and thus fair game under "fair use" law... but the lawyers for Disney or Marvell comics may certainly take an altogether different view.
On the other hand, if you're competitor architect down the street steals your building concept and presents it as his own (a problem someone I know has encountered more than once), then that is a quite a problem, and, mind you, one that happens quite often. Therefore, most of the "examples" given are pretty much meaningless, except perhaps the Fairy [sic] example.
A concept itself is not generally open to copyright protection. In other words, if we were living in the Gothic age, no architect would be able to copyright the idea of the "flying buttress". The specific design of a given buttress would be afforded protection, but not the idea of the structural element. Such would be akin to giving copyright protection to a color, or a technique of applying paint.
As for the examples given... I have already admitted that those predating copyright law were simply to establish the historical precedent of appropriation. You will need to do more than to simply state that the Shepard Fairey case is different to prove why his work amounts to plagiarism and Warhol's Elvis or Marilyn does not. It would seem obvious that nearly any artist wishing to employ the image of any celebrity or public figure would need to base such upon photographs... unless he or she had personal access to the individual. Because celebrities and public individuals are open to critical comment and parody it is commonly assumed that such appropriation is protected under "fair use" law. In this instance, however, we have a large corporation smelling money and willing to test the case through the courts. The ability of those with the deepest pockets to take such action... or only threaten to do such... effectively acts as a means of censorship.
By the way... what d'you make of these?:devil:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2245/...72e27c17_z.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/...c292e656_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5101/...3af99a63cf.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/...d9ed4012_z.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2530/...4a3d824d_z.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/...88899e71_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/...47639207_z.jpg
While inside the bubble of academia copyright laws may only seem like a hindrance to art, outside, many artists would be quite screwed without them (and some are even screwed with them). Plagiarism is a problem that is, with all our technology, greater now than ever, especially for writers and photographers. From here, your views appear grievously academic, which, for all their acumen, are pretty ignorant about reality in this case.
My opinions are academic and ignorant...? Hmmm... last I checked I wasn't working anywhere near academia... at the same time, my views are informed my my research on the topic of copyright law as it effects my own work as a working artist. I agree that photographers, film-makers, and recording artists... anyone who makes use of modern mechanical reproduction... is facing a challenge with regard to protecting their work. On the other hand, one must recognize that any medium has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. If one wishes to take advantage of mass production and the potential of the internet, one must also be aware of the potential problems. The question still remains as to just how we can enforce outdated ideas of copyright while still preserving all that we love about the internet, downloads, streaming music and film, and all our digital gadgets. The obvious answer is that we can't... we can't put the genie back into the jar. As such, we must rethink the whole means of financing and compensating artists.
It's all so exhausting. It almost makes me :smile5: that I have no talent and don't own much of anything that can be stolen.
"The question still remains as to just how we can enforce outdated ideas of copyright while still preserving all that we love about the internet, downloads, streaming music and film, and all our digital gadgets. The obvious answer is that we can't... we can't put the genie back into the jar. As such, we must rethink the whole means of financing and compensating artists."
There's very little of this stuff, (music, film, contemporary fiction), that is worth the time and effort it would take to download and steal. ...I own a few CD's. DVD's I rent once in a while and don't need to own. And digital gadgets - bleh - I was given a digital camera once, and I threw it away. I could do without the iPod, too.
"I think if you are J.K. the least you could do is invest in the replanting of forests - but she's strangely quiet on that issue, as are all best selling (read 'successful') authors (maybe not David Suzuki) and publishing magnates the world over - these 'people' are happily ripping off what is ours and belongs to everyone, and have been doing it since before history."
This is a good point, these 'people' ripping off what's ours. If the genie could be put back in the jar, I'd just put the forests back in the Pacific Northwest, not a replant, but the original old growth. The H.P. books aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I haven't read H.P. but I've heard that all of her ideas are stolen from classics with a pale spin. If it is commercial, it's tawdry.
...A public library is nice to have, that offers the classics, and since very few people care to read anything of quality, a few volumes would serve the entire country. If they only had classic books in the library, the library would be nice and uncrowded. Just give me back the forest and they can keep all of their digital garbage, including this laptop. More than anything, I'd love to go outside and breathe fresh air.
Revolte - your concerns (regarding what is moral or immoral) are as important as any of this, though maybe a bit off topic, but we can discuss it when this thread runs it's course, or on another thread. I hope I haven't sounded like a "know it all." My thinking can get rigid. You make me ponder things more.
I suppose people are confuding the occurence with Delta, a copy and paste sittuation, with all plagiarism. Guys like La Fontaine, Perrault, Shakespeare, Italo Calvino, etc. would be out of the accusation since they borrow from oral tradition, but this cann't be said for example from the history of Dracula. Not only the book would have too much similarity with previous works as they have imitators like Stephen King or Horacio Quiroga and of course, the famous case with the movie Nosferatu. Or the Captain Marvel and Superman.
I recall one funny, which was the White Wolf roleplaying game going to the courts against the movie Underworld because there was enough similarity between the movie plot (Vampires vs.Werewolves, the existence of a convenant between both, elder vampires, the possibility of a vampire-wolf mixed breed, even that they dressed in black leather, etc) with visual concepts and plot-lines of their games World of Darkness. Despite that all those ideas they borrowed from somewhere...
There also seems to be confusion between stealing something outright and changing it for the purpose of homage satire or parody.
I am not sure of the legal implications of these things. But I think they have a place in society and art, seeing something familiar and yet wittily altered is good. I would hate to see laws tightened to the point of choking such expression, I recently enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
But no one should copy exactly someone elses work and call it their own, the trouble is that if the original work is not famous enough in its own right any plagiarists can get away with it. We are reliant on folk being honest and unfortunately not everyone is.
So until the human race evolve a better moral gland , don't put anything you truly value up on any forum - sad but true.
On the flip side we should remember , before getting uppity, that how ever clever we think we are.....
To quote the Bible "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
For example : Vampire stories existed well before Dracula and they will be recycled for as long as there are people around to write I would bet.
I'm not sure exactly if an abandonment of copyright is being suggested here, or if more artist-friendly laws are potentially part of the mix. But I encourage people to not take the put-the-genie-back-in-a-bottle stuff too seriously. (The same goes for another notion that some want to prevail: "privacy is outdated.") We can put the genie back in the bottle (or basically as much of the genie that was ever in that bottle, anyhow), while keeping the ability to access and share widely, and notions of intellectual property and copyright.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild