4.8

stief · #18 (**permalink**) March 12th, 2005

Noooooo!

We need to insist that unless clearly stated . . . publicly available content should follow general academic plagiarism rules: credit the source and give the reference! Let's not allow the assumption that it's not free unless expliciitly stated.

Already there are attempts to restrict photos taken of public spaces http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/12/179212

Sadly our Canadian goverment is also considering a proposal that could really make teacher's use of the internet difficult

See the little "and" clause in http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/Doc...herirp01-e.pdf (page 33) that is so alarming in Recommendation 5

Quote:

The Committee recommends that publicly available material be defined as material that is available on public Internet sites (sites that do not require subscriptions or passwords and for which there is no associated fee or technological protection measures which restrict access or use) AND [ALLCAPS added] is accompanied by notice from the copyright owner explicitly consenting that the material can be used without prior payment or permission.

Currently if anyone captures the light from my house with a camera, that's fair. Why should I "own" the light? Bah! Stupid question . . . businesses would love to charge me for the air I breathe, I know

Anyway--we really do need to insist that material not clearly restricted is PUBLIC and free by default.

For the future--at least LW could "credit the source" by pasting the IP('s) of the souce of any file into the info fields.

The CC is indeed controversial, because it reinforces the new idea that a file is guilty unless proven innocent.