[free-sklyarov] Copyright as a restriction

[Jeme A Brelin]

On 23 Aug 2001, Stephen R. Savitzky wrote:
> One of the problems with many of the "open" licenses, like the EFF's
> OAL, is that they go too far.  If somebody sells a CD with one of my
> songs on it I expect to get paid, thank you -- there's a standard
> royalty for that (about $0.12 IIRC).  But I also don't want them to go
> so far as to prevent the purchaser from making a copy for their car's
> tape player or their kid's MP3 player, or lending it to a friend, or
> re-using the tune (as long as I get the composer's 50% share of their
> profits).  

Um... what you want is standard copyright protection.

Don't LICENSE your work.  Sell it, and you'll get exactly that and nothing
more or less.

> In fact, I'd like to see a license that prohibits distribution in a
> use-restricted format; might be difficult for songs given compulsory
> mechanical licensing (US only, I think), but feasible in other cases.

As the copyright holder, you can do that by simply not authorizing those
distributions.  (with exception for compulsory cases)

> It's sort of like the Open Content License's option of reserving to
> the author the right to make paper copies.  What I want is *not* an
> "open source" type license (which is what's best for software), but
> something in between, that guarantees fair payments to the author and
> fair use to the purchaser.

Again, that's plain old copyright.  Sell a copy, that's what you get.

I can't believe we've gotten so warped by the corporate licensing of the
past fifteen years that some people have actually forgotten that you can
SELL COPIES and not "license content" and still receive exclusive rights
from the public.

Sheesh.
J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org