some guy (self) wrote,
some guy

  • Mood:

No, Katie. Just common.

I gave y'all this link when last we spoke. It concerns a bit of copyright reform, namely an idea being tested in the courts that computer software might not be entitled to copyright protection. That's a CNN story, dated December 14th. Which is to say, big news for computer people, with lots of time to disseminate.

So you suppose this might be what CNET was talking about when they asked Bill Gates:

In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?

More to the point, do you think there was anything else they could possibly have been asking about? Or any other target his response might have addressed?

Wired Magazine would like you to think so.

My favorite line in the article:

Glenn Otis Brown, executive director of Creative Commons, wondered whom Gates was referring to when he made the remarks. Certainly not Creative Commons, which is a "voluntary, market-based approach to copyright," Brown wrote in an e-mail.

See, it reads like "Why is Bill Gates attacking us?" but I think Brown's real question was "Why is Wired Magazine contacting me about this?"

Take a moment for that to sink in -- half of their article is tied in by the statement "we're barking up the wrong tree."

Editorial license will only stretch so far, people...


I've been on the road since putting up that last entry, so if any of you have since posted "Creative Communist" banners for the rest of us to admire in our friends list, just consider yourself smacked down and let's put the matter behind us.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded