Max Barry, el lúcido autor de Jeniffer Gobierno, escribía en un reciente post:

“Aha! Sir, you have been exposed! You say it would be a good thing for copyright to be ten years, yet when given the option, you won’t do it yourself!”

Exactly. My argument is not that shorter copyright would be good for artists. I’m pretty sure it would be bad: not terrible, but definitely worse, at least for people like me who create (arguably) wholly original content. My argument is that it would be good for society, and that’s more important than what’s good for authors

Más claro agua: la reforma legal que reduzca el tiempo de explotación de los derechos de autor es necesaria porque las licencias no bastan ni pueden bastar. El régimen de autoría legal a día de hoy en Europa asegura un monopolio de por vida al autor y de 70 años tras su muerte a los descencientes. Por mucho que la alternativa asegure los incentivos, siempre serán menores que las rentas generadas por el monopolio.

Es cierto que licencias “abiertas” e incluso libres pueden ser útiles para abrir mercado a ciertos autores. Al fin, no dejan de ser una cierta forma de dumping, de conquista de la audiencia por guerra de precios, pero claro, eso no es equitativo, no sirve a todos los autores igual y por tanto no todos los autores lo acogeran del mismo modo:

When it comes to my career, I plan on doing what I think will help it best. There is a reasonable argument that releasing your work for free helps your career, and I partly agree with this, which is why my short stuff is available for anyone to copy, print, and even sell. But I’m not quite at the Cory Doctorow level, which involves putting your entire novel up for free download. If I thought it would be good for me, I’d do it. But I don’t, and there’s no ethical reason why I should. That’s why we need a change in the law: without it, artists and companies will act in their own best interest, and generally that means grabbing as many rights as possible and hanging onto them forever.

Y evidentemente también el otro lado, autores como Doctorow, con bases mediáticas globales, podrán utilizar y graduar el monopolio al modo Creative Commons de acuerdo con sus intereses para reducir el ámbito del mercado de los autores emergentes lo más posible.

La alternativa parece ser Devolución -esto es, reforma legal que reduzca los tiempos de explotación en monopolio- o privilegio. Los sistemas de licencias son, según avanzo y estudio, cada vez menos alternativos.

Max Barry, o lúcido autor de Jeniffer Governo, escrevia num recente pós:

“Aha! Sir, you have been exposed! You say it would bê a good thing for copyright to bê tem years, yet when given the option, you wonÂ’t do it yourself!”

Exactly. My argument is not that shorter copyright would bê good for artists. IÂ’m pretty sure it would bê bad: not terrível, but definitely worse, at least for people like me who create (arguably) wholly original content. My argument is that it would bê good for society, and thatÂ’s more important than whatÂ’s good for authors

Mais claro água: a reforma legal que reduza o tempo de exploração dos direitos de autor é necessária porque as licenças não bastam nem podem bastar. O regime de autoria legal a dia de hoje em Europa assegura um monopólio de por vida ao autor e de 70 anos depois de sua morte aos descencientes. Por muito que a alternativa assegure os incentivos, sempre serão menores que as rendas geradas pelo monopólio.

É verdadeiro que licenças “abertas” e inclusive livres podem ser úteis para abrir mercado a certos autores. Ao fim, não deixam de ser uma verdadeira forma de dumping , de conquista da audiência por guerra de preços, mas claro, isso não é equitativo, não serve a todos os autores igual e por tanto não todos os autores o acogeran do mesmo modo:

When it comes to my career, I plano on doing what I think will help it best. There is a reasonable argument that releasing your work for free helps your career, and I partly agree with this, which is why my short stuff is available for anyone to copy, print, and even sell. But IÂ’m not tire at the Cory Doctorow level, which involves putting your entire novel up for free download. If I thought it would bê good for me, IÂ’d do it. But I domÂ’t, and thereÂ’s não ethical reason why I should. ThatÂ’s why we need a change in the law: without it, artists and companies will act in their own best interest, and generally that means grabbing as many rights as possible and hanging onto them forever.

E evidentemente também o outro lado, autores como Doctorow, com bases mediáticas globais, poderão utilizar e graduar o monopólio ao modo Creative Commons de acordo com seus interesses para reduzir o âmbito do mercado dos autores emergentes o mais possível.

A alternativa parece ser Devolução -isto é, reforma legal que reduza os tempos de exploração em monopólio- ou privilégio. Os sistemas de licenças são, segundo avanço e estudo, a cada vez menos alternativos.

Max Barry, o lúcido autor de Jeniffer Goberno, escribía nun recente post:

“Aha! Sir, you have been exposed! You say it would be a good thing for copyright to be ten years, yet when given the option, you won’t do it yourself!”

Exactly. My argument is not that shorter copyright would be good for artists. IÂ’m pretty sure it would be bad: not terrible, but definitely worse, at least for people like me who create (arguably) wholly orixinal content. My argument is that it would be good for society, and thatÂ’s more important than whatÂ’s good for authors

Máis claro auga: a reforma legal que reduza o tempo de explotación dos dereitos de autor é necesaria porque as licenzas non bastan nin poden bastar. O réxime de autoría legal a día de hoxe en Europa asegura un monopolio para sempre ao autor e de 70 anos trala súa morte aos descencientes. Por moito que a alternativa asegure os incentivos, sempre serán menores que as rendas xeradas polo monopolio.

É certo que licenzas “abertas” e ata libres poden ser útiles para abrir mercado a certos autores. Ao fin, non deixan de ser una certa forma de dumping , de conquista da audiencia por guerra de prezos, pero claro, iso non é equitativo, non serve a todos os autores igual e xa que logo non todos os autores o acogeran do mesmo xeito:

When it comes to my career, I plan on doing what I think will help it best. There is a reasonable argument that releasing your work for free helps your career, and I partly agree with this, which is why my short stuff is available for anyone to copy, print, and even sell. But IÂ’m not quite at the Cory Doctorow level, which involves putting your entire novel up for free download. If I thought it would be good for me, IÂ’d do it. But I donÂ’t, and thereÂ’s non ethical reason why I should. ThatÂ’s why we need a change in the law: without it, artists and companies will act in their own best interest, and generally that means grabbing as many rights as possible and hanging onto them forever.

E evidentemente tamén o outro lado, autores como Doctorow, con bases mediáticas globais, poderán utilizar e graduar o monopolio ao modo Creative Commons de acordo cos seus intereses para reducir o ámbito do mercado dos autores emerxentes o máis posible.

A alternativa parece ser Devolución -isto é, reforma legal que reduza os tempos de explotación en monopolio- ou privilexio. Os sistemas de licenzas son, segundo avanzo e estudo, cada vez menos alternativos.

Max Barry, lo lucid autor de Jeniffer Govèrn, # # #el en un recent post:

“Aha! Sir, you have been exposed! You say it would be A good thing for copyright to be aja years, yet when given the option, you won’t don it yourself!”

Exactly. My argument is not that shorter Copyright would be good for artists. IÂ’m pretty sure it would be bad: not terrible, but definitely worse, at least for people like me who create (arguably) wholly original content. My argument is that it would be good for society, and thatÂ’S abitatz important than whatÂ’s good for authors

mai Clara aiga: la reforma legala que redusisca lo temps d'explotacion dels dreches d'autor es de besonh pr'amor que las licéncias pas bastan ni pòdon bastar. Lo regim d'autoria legala a jorn d'uèi en Euròpa assegura un monopòli de per vida a l'autor e de 70 ans après la siá mòrt als descencientes. Per fòrça que l'alternativa assegure los incentius, seràn totjorn mendres que las rendas generadas pel monopòli.

Es cèrt que de licéncias “dubèrtas” e quitament liuras pòdon èsser utilas per dobrir mercat a cèrts autors. A la fin, daissan pas d'èsser òm cèrta forma de dumping, de conquista de l'audiéncia per guèrra de prèses, mas clar, aiçò es pas equitativo, servís pas a totes los autors parièr e per tant pas totes los autors o acogeran de la meteissa manièra:

When it Manjas to my career, I plan on doing what I think will help it best. There is A reasonable argument that releasing your work for free helps your career, and I partly agree with this, which is why my short stuff is available for anyone to copy, print, and even sell. But IÂ’m not lève at the Cory Doctorow level, which involves putting your entire novel up for free download. If I thought it would be good for me, IÂ’d don it. But I donÂ’t, and thereÂ’s pas ethical reason why I should. ThatÂ’S why we need a change in the law: without it, artists and companies will act in their own best interest, and generally that means grabbing as many rights as possible and hanging onto them forever.

E evidentament tanben l'autre costat, d'autors coma Doctorow, amb basas mediaticas globalas, poiràn utilizar e graduar lo monopòli a la manièra Creative Commons cossent damb los sieus interèsses per redusir lo contorn del mercat dels autors emergentes çò mai possible.

L'alternativa sembla èsser Devolucion -aquò es, reforma legala que redusisca los tempses d'explotacion en monopòli- o privilègi. Los sistèmas de licéncias son, segontes avanci e estudi, de mens en mens alternatius.

Max Barry, el lúcido autor de Jeniffer Govern, escrivia en un recent post:

“Aha! Sir, you have been exposed! You say it would be a good thing for copyright to be tingues years, yet when given the option, you won’t do it yourself!”

Exactly. My argument is not that shorter copyright would be good for artists. IÂ’m pretty sure it would be bad: not terrible, but definitely worse, at least for people like em who create (arguably) wholly original content. My argument is that it would be good for society, and thatÂ’s habiti important than whatÂ’s good for authors

Més clar aigua: la reforma legal que redueixi el temps d'explotació dels drets d'autor és necessària perquè les llicències no basten ni poden bastar. El règim d'autoria legal a dia d'avui a Europa assegura un monopoli de per vida a l'autor i de 70 anys després de la seva mort als descencientes. Per molt que l'alternativa asseguri els incentius, sempre seran menors que les rendes generades pel monopoli.

És cert que llicències “obertes” i fins i tot lliures poden ser útils per a obrir mercat a certs autors. A la fi, no deixen de ser una certa forma de dumping, de conquesta de l'audiència per guerra de preus, però clar, això no és equitativo, no serveix a tots els autors igual i per tant no tots els autors ho acogeran de la mateix manera:

When it menges to my career, I pla on doing what I think will help it best. There is a reasonable argument that releasing your work for free helps your career, and I partly agree with this, which is why my short stuff is available for anyone to copy, print, and even sell. But IÂ’m not llevi at the Cory Doctorow level, which involves putting your entire novella up for free download. If I thought it would be good for em, IÂ’d do it. But I donÂ’t, and thereÂ’s no ethical reason why I should. ThatÂ’s why we need a change in the law: without it, artists and companies will act in their own best interest, and generally that means grabbing as many rights as possible and hanging onto them forever.

I evidentment també l'altre costat, autors com Doctorow, amb bases mediàtiques globals, podran utilitzar i graduar el monopoli a la manera Creative Commons d'acord amb els seus interessos per a reduir l'àmbit del mercat dels autors emergents el més possible.

L'alternativa sembla ser Devolució -això és, reforma legal que redueixi els temps d'explotació en monopoli- o privilegi. Els sistemes de llicències són, segons avanço i estudi, cada vegada menys alternatius.