[free-sklyarov] Seybold session yesterday

[Tom]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 04:13:49AM -0700, Alex Katalov wrote:
> Somebody may not like the example with _white only_ limitation - but
> even if the license agreement says so "easy" - that I should read
> purchased book only while sitting in my bath room, at daylight time
> and by single eye, and I learn this only after I pay for this book -
> this license agreement is obviously false from _any_ point of view !!!

is it? copyright law also includes (in some countries) the right of the
author to the "integrity of the work". what if he believes that this is
the only way that you can correctly experience his work? think artist,
not corporation.


> >>From this point of view such a contract (for _white_ only) is possible
> D> but in this case _non white_ people should get compensation and i
> D> think the best compensation would be to allow them to decide who can
> D> and who cannot read the book. Most likely they would allow to read it
> D> for all. So in fact *_white_ only contract* is nonsence.

is it? how about the author? he may feel that he wants only white
people to read it.

here's a different solution:

- define a set of restrictions as "open publishing" (the standard
copyright things: no illegal copying, etc.)
- everything with that set and no others has normal copyright terms
(whatever those may be)
- any, and I do mean *any*, other restrictions are allowed, provided
that the customer is informed completely about them *prior* to sale. in
addition, copyright terms for these "restricted publishing" works is
considerably less (no more than half the usual term, more like 25% or
10% of it).



-- 
-- http://web.lemuria.org
--