il Popolo di Vermichattle

Verm & Solitair

Legal Opinionist
Registrato
22/5/00
Messaggi
1.624
Punti reazioni
21
No, no, no alla proprietà intellettuale su Internet. Se uno pone un messaggio su Internet, vuol dire che lo vuole "donare" alla collettività. Altrimenti se lo tenesse per sè.

Che senso ha mandare in giro per il mondo le proprie idee, se altri non le possono utilizzare? Ben venga che sia garantita la paternità del pensiero, ma che il pensiero sia comunque della collettività che lo possa utilizzare a proprio piacimento.

Scopiazzare è giusto. Sopprimere il nome della persona da cui si scopiazza no.
 

Verm & Solitair

Legal Opinionist
Registrato
22/5/00
Messaggi
1.624
Punti reazioni
21
il cardinale Giordano si schiera per il popolo di Seattle, speravamo di fare Noi le prediche.

Bhà (pensatore)
 

Verm & Solitair

Legal Opinionist
Registrato
22/5/00
Messaggi
1.624
Punti reazioni
21
Con un po' più di calma vorrei approfondire il problema della proprietà intellettuale: lo spunto mi proviene dall'ottimo luigir con le sue provocazioni "etiche".
 

Pace In Medioriente

@LER1967 AKA Luigir
Registrato
28/12/00
Messaggi
1.021
Punti reazioni
42
Fresco Fresco

Notizia freschissima che riguarda questo thread, che mi riguarda e riguarda tanti di noi.

Viene pero' dagli USA ed ho la versione in inglese:


Justices Side With Writers in Dispute
Over Electronic Publication of Articles

Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- Dealing a blow to big media companies, the Supreme Court said that free-lance writers can control whether articles they sold for print in a newspaper or magazine may be reproduced in electronic form.

The court on Monday ruled 7-2 that compilation in an electronic database is different from other kinds of archival or library storage of material that once appeared in print.

That means that publishers like New York Times Co. infringe copyrights held by free-lancers when they transfer the writers' works to electronic databases without their permission, the court said.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the electronic databases reproduce and distribute articles "standing alone," and aren't part of a collective work that would be shielded under federal copyright law. "Both the print publishers and the electronic publishers, we rule, have infringed the copyrights of free-lance authors," Justice Ginsburg wrote.

Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented.

In 1997 a federal judge in New York sided with the publishers by ruling that periodicals are "collective works" that can be revised and distributed without a writer's permission.

But a panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York disagreed, saying the "privilege afforded authors of collective works [under copyright law] does not permit the publishers to license individually copyrighted works for inclusion in electronic databases."

Monday's ruling by the nation's highest court affirmed that decision.

The copyright fight goes to the heart of the Internet's basic appeal to researchers and other users -- how much information is available at the click of a computer mouse.

Large publishers had argued that if they lost the case, they probably would remove a substantial amount of material from electronic view rather than fight with writers over permission and fees.

The case turned on whether electronic reproduction of a newspaper or periodical constitutes a revision of the original print edition. Under copyright law, publishers don't need an author's permission to produce a revised version of the original edition.

Six free-lance writers sued the New York Times, Newsday, Time and other publishers over inclusion of their work in electronic databases. Some databases, such as Lexis/Nexis, require the user to pay a fee while others are available free over the Internet. (New York Times vs. Tasini)