Michael MacTaggert is a software developer looking for work, host of a law review podcast called Amicus Lectio, and a moderator of Programming Discussions (invite.progdisc.club). Follow me on Twitter!
Hi, from the other thread. I'm not here to pick a fight and I initially wasn't going to comment.
I'm just interested in this: what you think of the public domain? There are multiple ways to characterize it, but the copyright system itself revokes an author's exclusive right to vend a work and there's nothing the author can do about it. At that point, the association of sharing with giving something up is rather moot because anyone can make new legal copies. That's not a small number of works, either; it's thousands of years of material disconnected from the duty to the author you describe here. You can even plagiarize any of it!
Thanks if you answer! Or not! I promise not to reply again if you don't want me to.
Public domain is fine; the interested parties are no longer alive in most cases, and if there is anyone with the authority to renew the copyright (e.g. the family), they've chosen not to do so.
Sooner or later, knowledge does make it into the public domain, but not in a way that does material harm to the creator.
Prior to something aging into the system, if someone chooses explicitly to place something in public domain, that is their call as the rights-holder.
You know earlier how I feel, but I will grant you this: if you do indeed care about this topic, as it seems you might, I recommend you do extensive research into how copyright and publishing actually works from a creator standpoint, from sources directly opposed to your current views. (It's important to leave one's own echo chamber.) I think you've misunderstood some things, including how public domain works, but I choose to blame certain prominent influencers who have historically spread misinformation about copyright.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Hi, from the other thread. I'm not here to pick a fight and I initially wasn't going to comment.
I'm just interested in this: what you think of the public domain? There are multiple ways to characterize it, but the copyright system itself revokes an author's exclusive right to vend a work and there's nothing the author can do about it. At that point, the association of sharing with giving something up is rather moot because anyone can make new legal copies. That's not a small number of works, either; it's thousands of years of material disconnected from the duty to the author you describe here. You can even plagiarize any of it!
Thanks if you answer! Or not! I promise not to reply again if you don't want me to.
Public domain is fine; the interested parties are no longer alive in most cases, and if there is anyone with the authority to renew the copyright (e.g. the family), they've chosen not to do so.
Sooner or later, knowledge does make it into the public domain, but not in a way that does material harm to the creator.
Prior to something aging into the system, if someone chooses explicitly to place something in public domain, that is their call as the rights-holder.
You know earlier how I feel, but I will grant you this: if you do indeed care about this topic, as it seems you might, I recommend you do extensive research into how copyright and publishing actually works from a creator standpoint, from sources directly opposed to your current views. (It's important to leave one's own echo chamber.) I think you've misunderstood some things, including how public domain works, but I choose to blame certain prominent influencers who have historically spread misinformation about copyright.