GrepLaw |
|
|
This site is a production of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Please email if you have questions, contributions, or ideas about improving this site.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Miller and Von Lohmann on Fisher's Proposal
|
|
|
|
posted by mpawlo
on Friday August 08, @03:58AM
from the now-this-gets-interesting dept.
|
|
|
|
|
My Greplaw piece, Professor Fisher and The Red Eye, has provoked further reactions. Mr Derek Slater (of Copyfighter's musings fame) probably thinks I did not do my homework properly, but then again, I am not a psychic. Next time I comment on something Professor Fisher wrote for Cnet News.com, I will be sure to bring my Tarot card deck to see if he actually means something else than what's in the column. I stated, based on the facts presented in Professor Fisher's Cnet Column, that Professor William W. Fisher, III, had presented a proposition that is to copyright what Sauron’s Red Eye was to the citizens of Middle-earth. Using such hyperbole - Tarot jokes aside - I should probably have tried to find more information on Professor Fisher's proposal (at least through Google) and I apologize for any confusion my Greplaw opinion piece may have caused.
On the brighter side, a new debate has spurned following my piece, where Professor Fisher's original proposal (PDF-document, not linked from the Cnet piece) is discussed and where Mr Fred von Lohmann (of EFF fame) and Mr Ernest Miller (of Lawmeme fame) has chipped in. The discussion took place on Mr John Parres' and Mr Jim Griffin's Pho mailing list, but Mr Derek Slater has been good enough to collect the entire exchange on a web page. Oh yes, and by the way, even though the dog ate my homework, I am still concerned over the privacy implications of Professor Fisher's proposal.
Read the exchange on Professor Fisher's proposal.
|
|
|
|
< Email Charges Solve Spam Problem
| Fine Art Goes Digital >
| |
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Miller and Von Lohmann on Fisher's Proposal
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 6 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is a copyright club more than a blog club. This is a problem, because new radical ideas may be diluted by the club's common meme.
However - and as the discussion on Professor Fisher's proposal suggests - this may be a bigger problem in theory than in practice. After all, we are not single-mindedly singing hallelujah [gospelcom.net] over Professor Fisher's proposal. On the contrary, I have called it the Red Eye of Copyright, Mr Miller has slashed it thouroughly and Mr Slater and Von Lohmann has defended it.
Still, it is important for new voices to chip in and comment. But I guess the powerlaws of blogging [shirky.com] may work the other way around, keeping the club small and exclusive.
Regards,
Mikael
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'But I read the blogs of my friends for different reasons than I read Greplaw. I'm not sure what the point is, but an interest in "fame" (a word which appears (perhaps ironically) in your first post) seems to pervade a lot of copyright blawgs, doesn't it?'
Well, the Seven Deadly Sins [deadlysins.com] have always worked fine as incentive. If an interest in fame pervade the blogs, I think that it's perfectly okay as long as it doesn't perverse the blogs.
However, if you think that Greplaw is turning into some hug-all-club, then maybe we should turn more to the New York Times way of reporting news. Alas, it may turn out to be a little bit on the boring side. After all - we deal with the law.
Regards,
Mikael
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be
lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
- Isaac Asimov
|
|
|
|
|
[
home |
contribute story |
older articles |
past polls |
faq |
authors |
preferences ]
|