Copyright/Patent
August 6, 2008
1. This seems a good site:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/about
2. The Eolas/Microsoft problem is apparently resolved. It is with great relief that after costing me (and a great number of developers and designers and users) a great deal of time and trouble, Microsoft has been able to eliminate "click to activate".
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/activecontent/
November 8, 2007 – Important update: As a result of recent technology licenses acquired by Microsoft, the "click to activate" restrictions are no longer mandatory. Microsoft plans to remove the activation behavior from Internet Explorer in April 2008.
Older versions of IE will continue with the problem for some time no doubt, and what other browsers are up to I don't know. Now I will have to find out how to get rid of all that extraneous code which I don't understand and which is cluttering up the animations.
November 16, 2006
Some Patent issues will need to be addressed here.
I have located some of the Eolas case documentation and expect to take this opportunity to study up on Patent Law. This has not been undertaken yet. I have obviously not spent sufficient time on it to date.
The following are some notes made to deal with issues created by being ill-prepared. There are a number of excuses good and otherwise, they are left out.
_______________
As a result of the Eolas lawsuit Microsoft changed how Internet Explorer handles interactive controls. When the updated Explorer is installed, the user must click on the object (Flash, Java_applet, etc.) before using the buttons.
If you use the Musemath download version dire catostrophic warnings will stop you in your tracks.
Everything else was held up and using the fixes suggested, the site looks ok now but I wish to be a better prepared in the future.
The idea with Musemath is to generate "Gestalt's", if not on every mouse click, then at least on some of them. Which, when, and where is presumed different for each individual depending upon prior knowledge and prejudices. The response would also vary with experience using the site.
To that end, each mouse click is important, or rather, it cannot be predicted which will be important. I'm looking to permit response times roughly equivalent to those in action games and this "click to activate" stuff seems too much an interference.
The current browser update affects not only Musemath, but also all the sites with interactive content to which it links and upon which it depends. On my own, I am not much of an authority on much of anything. Differing viewpoints are essential in any event. Most of the other sites have not been updated to correct this - in fact I only know of one that has corrected the problem - many are no longer maintained and will never be brought up to date.
This hinders the Musemath experience but, since all of these things are pretty much out of date as soon as they are published anyway, perhaps this will generate improvements a bit quicker.
I can do nothing about the other sites, Everybody in the business (except for Eolas) argued against enforcement of this patent but the full judical authority of the United States has stated that the law is the law, enforced it will be, and enforced it now is.
Let me say here that I have nothing bad to say against Eolas (Good Irish name) or any of the participants here, I couldn't have gotten anything done on my own. And, as a retired member of the bar I must admit to a bit of appreciation and speculative envy as to the attorney's remunerations - all parties. I'm only having difficulty dealing with the results, perhaps a bit more than some others, and wondering "what next?"
The District Court Judge suggested such a closer look regarding the injunction on future use may be approprite in future cases though it was cloaked in Latin (no doubt in retaliation for being subjected to years of technical jargon from witnesses speaking in Code).
...An injunction (as opposed to colossal damages) with respect to a
product so widely used and deeply integrated into society, as is this one, presents a policy problem. This may be one of those matters (like widespread toxic torts and giant securities frauds) for which we need a maxim like De Maximus Non Curat Lex. ...founded on the recognition that courts may not be able to answer the questions posed by these problematic policy cases...UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
EOLAS TECHOLOGIES
INCORPORATED,
and
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
No. 99 C 0626
Judge James B. Zagel
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CONSOLIDATED RULINGS ON POST-TRIAL MOTIONSdated?
signed?(ror- I have no idea how to cite cyberCases, yet)
If acted upon, the U.S. Congress will no doubt be acting solely in the best interests of the general Welfare. From time to time, such may happen and more was never expected. It was generally felt that the brutal brawling of competing interests, if kept sufficiently in the open, might at least keep people from shooting each other in the streets. Alternate solutions continue to be tried worldwide, unsucessfully.
I approach this as follows:
I have nothing at stake here except to keep busy making animations..
Technology evolves faster than laws. A bit like a migrating flight of birds, you keep up as best you can or fall out, no more to rise forever.
The imperitive "progress of science" in the U.S. Constitution section on patent law means engineering and other "useful arts". Science as method had best look after itself. (Though no one is likely to succeed for very long without it.)
A jury of my peers proably doesn't understand much of this. I base this on the fact that I don't either.
There is only so much world to divy up and communication is at least one key to any reasonable divying thereof.
Here are some reference notes I have used to investigate and correct the ActiveX problem so far:
Note that no corrections have yet been applied to the Download version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas
(includes links on how to correct)
http://www.eolas.com/news.html
http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/
Firefox recently stopped working, indicatiing a "Problem with Windows". Safari and Netscape seemed ok (October 14, 2006).
I would like to maintain their functionality in old browsers and old Flash Player Plug-ins but this may not be a good time to be "backwards looking". I will try the Flash 8 update first to see what happens.
I have looked at the following sites to fix this:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/912945
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/articles/swfobject.html
http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=7c29e252
http://www.adobe.com/support/flash/downloads.html#flash8
http://www.adobe.com/go/4f91f9b8
Most of the sites are programmers speaking to programmers, I have recently upgraded to Windows XP and Studio 8 but I am still using an, old computer, meaning - 'I don't understand all of this, don't know where the buttons are on the new software, and may not have the hardware resouces to do much about it anyway.' Some patience is desirable.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/News/4604-The-ActiveX
"To further complicate matters, in February, a patent was granted to Balthasar, a California-based web design firm, for "all rich-media technology implementations, including Flash, Flex, Java, Ajax, and XAML, when the rich-media application is accessed on any device over the Internet...
Neil Balthaser, a former VP of strategy for Macromedia, the developer of the Flash rich-media development environment and player, now owned by Adobe, says he will most likely sell the patent rather than enforce it himself. He says he's discussing the sale of the patent to "top-tier players."
On one forum it was commented something like "Great, now he owns the internet." Possibly a bit of an exageration.
I can't see anything on Balthasar.com except for the exceptional "flashy" graphics, and have found nothing more recent than April 2006 elsewhere.
Copyright
November 15, 2006
Another legal matter of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
"Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality...
...it has yet to be endorsed specifically by the Supreme Court...has not been cited by any appellate-level circuit... it has no mandatory legal authority and its persuasive legal authority, as a district court opinion, has not been confirmed. "
(ror - . For a non-profit site with educational pretensions such as Musemath I might try reliance on its argumentation. There are a couple of pictures re: the works of Tycho/Kepler; possibly useful to an animated explication of the early implimentation of calculus. The idea today, (Oct. 20, 2006), is an optional linked footnote... only someone sufficiently curious would click on it and, it could be removed without too much difficuly if the Bridgeman case reasoning is overturned. - Just thinking out loud here.)
April 9, 2006
I just added and moved a few items I had been working on several months ago - they have to do mostly with various individual/s approaches to this kind of "protection" and are noted in smaller size print since I have not taken the time to work on them in any detail.
In general my current thinking is you have to make a decision, comercial or not. If not commercial, someone else is quite likely to have an idea on how to make a profit on it and is entitled thereto. If commercial, and immediately useful, patent is probably overrated, you'll give it away. Keep it a Trade Secret, make a profit and move on to something else. Let someone take it over and make money for the lawyers defending it. (November 14, 2006 - This was written before I was aware of Eolas - I'm not sure my mind is changed but at last look there were some 520 million reasons to take a closer look.)
December 5, 2005
Some preliminary thoughts:
The Copyright Office took 14 months to respond to my last registration application,
apparently considerable screening and security measures are now required. They
also require more information and it appears that the process is to be followed
for every update.
I want to look at whether all this is worth my while. Registration is not necessary for copyright but enforcement may be impracticable without it. The issue, for me is whether I want to keep open the option of enforcing such rights as exist, and at what cost.
Musemath is an experiment in the use of the Internet for e-learning. To the extent copyright can help, it is useful, otherwise, I just want to avoid its pitfalls
Everything that is mine (there are exceptions, specifically noted) is currently free with the stated restriction that it is not to be used for commercial purposes. I have thought of using a Creative Common License (http://creativecommons.org/) as well as simply putting everything directly into Public Domain status for free use by anyone, (I am not sure that the restriction against commercial use is a good idea, one cannot, after all, expect everyone to create and give this stuff away continuously without at least some source of income sufficient to sustain it.) Such steps however may be irrevocable and some consideration is required.
What I am looking for is the type of internet education module as will allow people to function intelligently in a complex technological society. So far, much of the really good work I find on the internet has been free, in the public domain or under a Creative Common License, often by someone just working out a solution for his or her own curiosity and a desire to share the knowledge gained. Many technical commercial sites will give a bit away either to show advertising or to entice you onto their site, but occasionally simply with the idea that an educated customer base is good business. The commercial "Education" sites often do a good job as well and somebody has to deal with a great many "Public Education Standards". Then too, there are consortiums of various sorts; institutions/corporations/government, some now advocating "Open Source Education Technology".
I had set out in some detail what has been done on the musemath website by way of copyright compliance.
Fortunately, I have just erased most of it - let the website speak for itself.
Only the following is left for consideration:
The technology for internet publication was changing by the nanosecond (it has not slowed down yet), I had already spent several years learning enough of it to author the website. There is only a window of opportunity beyond which your interests evolve, your expertise expires, the software gets too soft, and the hardware begins to break down. Musemath would yet be an obscure and forgotten file on a rusting hardrive in a junkheap had I been overly cautious. Some uncertainty and risk seemed the better option and in fact is inescapable.
In the United States, the constitutional imperative is to promote, not hinder science. Musemath is also intended to promote science. Some care has been taken to observe formal requirements and common sense and no money is involved to date so I see little need for recourse to law at the moment.
That at least is the argument to date. Research is ongoing and my opinion may change. At the moment, it just appears that I am not going to make a cent out of this which matches the Pythagorean maxim well enough.
"A diagram and a step, not a diagram and a penny."
There should probably be some consideration of patent possibilities in the future. This involves some step to develop an idea into a profitable venture of some sort. The law is much happier when there is hard coin of the realm to divvy up.
Einstein should also be researched a bit, as he must have learned something from all those years working in the patent office. His original Relativity paper, as I understand it (a ridiculous statement), does not cite a single authority for its assertions. They all stand on their own intrinsic merits. He is reported as saying something like "The secret to a succesful scientific paper is to hide your sources". If we want to "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" by copyright, something might be learned here. What is to be learned I don't know exactly, "If we knew what we were looking for, it wouldn't be called research, would it?", another of his quotations.
04.07.06
I had done some research on Einstein two or more months ago but other matters
came up and I can no longer find the research. So, as I recall; when asked about
the lack of citations in his paper(s?), he reportedly said something like 'I
did not think it useful to include a thoroughly pedantic review of the literature.'
Clearly he did not create his ideas in a vacuum but he was able to add to the
ideas of others and reformulate the existing material into something his peers
at the time (the only people really qualified to judge this) thought new, powerful,
original, comprehensible, and worth all the credit he received. To me, this
indicates he did not spend all his time in the copyright office daydreaming
about light but also considered carefully how his ideas could best be spread
about.
(This one from Einstein has nothing to do with copyright but expreses my sentiments today as I try to comprehend some more fourierEigenStuff, "Now that the mathematicians have gotten hold of my theory I can hardly understand it myself.")
All of this should come down to a close look at the practical realities of the internet. The applicability of copyright, designed to deal with the printing press; to this new medium of a world wide web, is not at all clear. It is certainly far too slow as currently practiced (it recently got even slower due to security issues).
The printing press changed all the established institutions of its time, hardly anything less can be expected from the internet. Some rather unsettling and painful adaptations are being made.
One issue, there was a "chilling effect" on my own IP provider concerning this website. The effect however was that I did more original work which is the intended purpose of U.S. copyright. Still, I have not yet figured out how continually extending copyright duration advances science. There are a few pictures, 50 years old, which would have been helpful to me. More research.
Another problem, "Too Much Information" - is probably too much for immediate consideration on the Musemath site. The shear quantity of information to be processed, its rapid change and varying locations would seem to preclude too much concern for the dainty details of a formal, slow moving beauracracy.
"Derivative Work" should be researched a bit. The most specific instance on the Musemath website is "Wavesums 2 - Travelling Waves 2.
One issue for immediate consideration:
a site such as
url=(0043)http://a.parsons.edu/~joseph/dcm/notes.html
http:www.parsons.edu
A number of student projects and criticisms of development of games for children were found here (Lime Learning Lab?), I find them informative and helpful though I do not know if direct links should be established to students work of 2-3 years ago - who's permission should be obtained?. the student's, the school's, the teacher's, the parent's, all of the above?, none of the above? Is this a trick question?
Also, teacher's syllabuses and course outlines from several years previous frequently come up through the search engines. It is not clear to me that the teachers are aware of or want public links to such documents.
I have come across a number of student projects, theses and teacher outlines recently, some of high quality. If they are sufficiently on point for Musemath I will generally link directly and may excerpt a bit - hopefully within "fair use" guidelines and notice to the author. Here it seems a bit peripheral and the address only is provided.
Some of this may be addressed by the Teach Act (see below), which I have yet to review in detail.
I am most interested in unmediated learning, general browsing or surfing, outside of institutional supervision. That is, how to put information of value in a place it is likely to be found by any who take the trouble to look. Cooperation and respect for the institutional requirements seems simply good sense.
A second consideration:
I am now using code, not very deep and not all of it mine, but with permission so far as I can tell. My current thinking is that the animations should permit their own re - creation (if desired) for maximum educational benefit. They should include tutorials showing how the math creates the animation.
That is, most of the animations (my own and others) were originally done to "clarify the understanding" of the author. They are expected to demonstrate some principle quickly and convincingly. If the process's of their creation are repeated by the viewer, the principles are validated, not merely memorized, the same as for any 'real world' experiment. The repeatability of an experiment; physical, thought, or virtual, goes to the core of what science is.
Here, the content would have to be copied in the process of transferring the "clarity of understanding" from the author to the viewer. That is the clear intent of the work itself (prima facie - at first view).
Admittedly, some of the Musemath animations serve more to demonstrate the fogginess rather than the clarity of my understanding - but perhaps they will stir someone to improving upon them.
At any rate, I see little value to copyright in an animation designed to give everything away.
Some Preliminary Research follows:
I should like to take a closer look at what Benjamin Franklin thought of the copyright issue, there could hardly be a more respected practical view - printer, publisher, author, scientist, diplomat and a principle in the creation of the U.S. Constitution which sets forth the U.S. copyright policy.
04.07.06 - some copyPasteResearch
Benjamin Franklin though self-made through his hard work and inventiveness, apparently did not copyright or patent any of the following:
http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventors/ss/Franklin_invent.htm
The glass armonica created in 1761.
Franklin Stove - The new stove and reconfiguration of the flues allowed for a more efficient fire, one that used one quarter as much wood and generated twice as much heat. When offered a patent for the fireplace's design, Benjamin Franklin turned it down. He did not want to make a profit. He wanted all people to benefit from his invention.
Lightening Rod - The rod attracts the lightning and sends the charge into the ground, which helps to decrease the amount of fires.
In 1784, Ben Franklin developed bifocal glasses.
Franklin was the first scientist to study and map the Gulf Stream.
Odometer - While serving as Postmaster General in 1775, Franklin decided to analyze the best routes for delivering the mail. He invented a simple odometer to help measure the mileage of the routes that he attached to his carriage.
Thomas Jefferson probably knew more about science and invention than anyone else in America with the exception of Franklin.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813 Writings 13:333--35
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery
Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905
04.07.06
...If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it....
...That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property......Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody...
Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States and invented but did not patent a swivel chair, spherical sundial, moldboard plow and cipher wheel.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/jefferson.html
By Thomas O. Jewett
...He opposed patents strongly because he considered it an unfair monopoly. He would later become more in their favor when he discovered the power they had to encourage invention..
As Secretary of State, ... The patent system he created remains the basis for the patent system of today...
And some several score or so years later:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blkidprimer6_12pres.htm
Abraham Lincoln had a strong interest in new technology and is the only U.S.
President to hold a patent...Lincoln received Patent #6,469 for "A Device
for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on May 22, 1849 (patent drawing included).
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln called the introduction of patent laws one of the three most important developments "in the world’s history," along with the discovery of America and the perfection of printing. .... Lincoln declared that "The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
1787
ARTICLE 1, Section 8, clause 8, The Congress shall have the power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The Federalist
1788
Number 43 (Madison)
...The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned...
...The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provision for either of the cases...
U.S. Supreme Court
FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but
"[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Art. I, 8,
cl. 8. Accord, Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975).
To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original [499 U.S.
340, 350] expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and
information conveyed by a work.
TEACH ACT OF 2002
Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization Act
The act provides for:
1. An expansion of the materials that may be used in distance
education.
2. The ability to deliver content to students outside the classroom.
3. The retention of archival copies of course materials on servers.
4. Authority to convert some works from analog to digital
formats.
It requires:
1. Copyright policies set up by the institutions.
2. Technological restrictions on
access and copying.
3. Limits on the quantity of certain works that may be
digitized and included in distance education.
4. Use of copyrighted materials in the context of "mediated
instructional activities" similar to a traditional course.
I have not yet done any research here except to find these possible resources: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/legislation/teach.html
http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/links_teach.html
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/scc/legislative/teachkit/
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998
U.S. Copyright Office Summary
December 1998
INTRODUCTION
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law by
President Clinton on October 28, 1998. The legislation implements two 1996 World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty
and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The DMCA also addresses a number
of other significant copyright-related issues.
Title I, the “WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms
Treaties Implementation Act of 1998,” implements the WIPO
treaties.
Title II, the “Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation
Act,” creates limitations on the liability of online service providers
for
copyright infringement when engaging in certain types of activities...
Title IV contains six miscellaneous provisions, relating to the
functions of the Copyright Office, distance education, the exceptions
in the Copyright Act for libraries and for making ephemeral recordings,
“webcasting” of sound recordings on the Internet, and the applicability
of collective bargaining agreement obligations in the case of transfers
of rights in motion pictures.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/eucd_materials
This site, from Harvard Law School "...focuses on the relevant laws of
EU member states, but also includes references to international law and to selected
countries outside the EU. Links both to official documents and English translations
have been listed, where available. (Last update: June 14, 2005.)"
I have not even begun research in this area yet.
This link may be important:
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P51_3806
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit. These works -- intellectual property -- are expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life, as well as creating real wealth for nations.
The LawHost Online Law Journal
Alan H. Blankenheimer
http://lawhost.com/lawjournal/99winter/digital.html
A Summary of the New Digital Millennium Copyright Act
by Dan L. Bagatell,
New Developments in Copyright Litigation:
Infringement, Fair Use, Internet Law and Preemption
There seems some good research here emphasizing 9th and 2nd Circuit decisions.
The Copyright Society of the United States of America
The Society is a center of the American copyright community for the bar, for
industry and for law schools. Its primary function is the gathering, dissemination
and interchange of information concerning protection and use of rights in intellectual
property. The Society also seeks to promote better understanding of copyright
and the vital importance of legal and economic protection of intellectual property
generally and copyright in particular.
Here are some addresses and excerpts for further research:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#copyright
http://www.bitlaw.com/index.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/index.html
There is no such thing as an International Copyright that will automatically
protect an author's writings throughout the entire world. Protection against
unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national
laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign
works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified
by international copyright treaties and conventions.
(See: the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.)
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html
The best way to obtain images is to create them in a drawing or other image creation program. In doing so, however, it is best to start from scratch rather than from someone else's creation. Even if an image is significantly altered, the new image may infringe upon the copyright in the first image by being a "derivative work."
http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
timeline of U.S. copyright law thru November 2002
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ecourse/readings/background.htm
list of good links
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ecourse/wp-copy.doc
Intellectual Property and the
National Information Infrastructure
The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights
1995
April 5. 2005
Copyright Issues
I am considering the possibilities of using a "Creative Commons License". Simply by publishing I am giving my ideas away as fast as I can create them. I have found many of my new ideas to be other people's old ideas anyway. It is understood that ideas are not copyrightable.
Aside from the ideas, there is nothing that you can't get from the most basic Flash tutorials (with practice and time). I have'nt used any advanced scripting.
The idea, as I understand it is that you can get better notoriety, faster spread of your ideas, and even (if desired) a better a chance of financial reward down the line by sharing more openly than under traditional ideas of copyright which are hopelessly inadequate to the fast pace of the internet. (copyPasteRights)
Not to mention the fact that your work (if any good) is likely to be "borrowed" and "improved" without your knowledge and consent anyway - in vast areas of this world it is accepted practice - I read this is changing with the global economy.
You have to be pretty darn successful to make it worthwhile to hire a lawyer to enforce your rights even when possible.
Copyrights have been an enormous headache - just trying to figure out where to fit the notice is bad enough. I regret the loss of space and this has kept me from adding a "version" date to them, which would be nice.
$30 is $30 and there is an absurdly long wait for a response.
I have certainly stretched any concept of "Fair Use" at a few points. And the difficulties of obtaining actual permissions have kept and will keep certain ideas from realization. I may be imposing such difficulties on others by sticking with a "traditional" copyright requirement.
The "Creative Commons" idea sounds good for this medium, others I know and respect have used it and I am in general agreement with the license as I read it.
A recent television discussion/debate brought out some favorable points but was a bit short on the quality of the negative points, a closer look is called for. I would like to see the pros and cons in sharper focus.
There are always negatives and risks to this sort of thing. I will do a bit more research- ETA 1 month - I'm already giving free downloads and not in a rush.