[fosscomm] Spoken Tutorial Project - IIT Bombay, Interest in getting involved with you !
jtd at mtnl.net.in
jtd at mtnl.net.in
Mon Oct 17 00:07:01 PDT 2011
On Monday 17 Oct 2011 11:49:35 sajan venniyoor wrote:
> On 17 October 2011 10:54, <jtd at mtnl.net.in> wrote:
> > > So how can a content creator allow content to be usable
> > > for free where there are no financial gains but restrict when someone
> > > is making financial gains ?
> > You cant, especially when the term "commercial" is totally ambiguous.
> > What happens when an educational website/provider distributes the content
> > for
> > free, but merges several commercial ads into he content. what happens
> > when a
> > teacher uses the content in a classroom as - she is after all paid for
> > the lecture.
> As far as content is concerned, the Copyright Act gives considerable
> latitude for the use of even copyrighted material for, say, educational
So would a "oracle" class constitute educational purpose?. The law is well
settled on that score. You cant use copyrighted works in and educational
institution without obtaining permissions - licences.
> Chap XI (52) of the Act gives an indicative list of the fair use
> of copyright material, including "the reproduction of a literary, dramatic,
> musical or artistic work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of
> instruction." (You can even stage a contemporary play or screen a film in a
> school without permission, as long as you don't sell tickets I suppose).
> Conflating 'content' with 'source-code' is rather disingenuous, and while
> the Copyright Act is not perfect, we have a reasonable understanding of
> what constitutes content.
IMO, the example exceptions i gave, effectively reinforces my statement. Which
is that content can have compiled sources.
Of course I refer only to digital content. Your statement assumes that content
need not consist of essentially distinct multiple source components, each of
which can be used completely independently of the other. My extension of such
cases is to further include additional sources to create derivates and
generate revenue thru the additional sources.
It is the imperfections of the copyright act that will be exploited at a
future date by copyright holders. Again one may not assume that the goodness
of the current holders will extend to the future holders.
> To suggest that content is, mostly, the
> source-code is to head rapidly down a slippery slope at the bottom of which
> one finds such chimera as basic smartphones that are reportedly governed by
> 4 million patents.
I presume you are referring to software patents, hence the above statement.
Indian patent law is clear on the subject - no software patents.
> I'm not sure if the nature of creativity is considered
> to be infinitely fragmentary and fungible in the digital world, but some of
> that thinking now permeates art and culture, as in recent cases where Bob
> both accused of plagiarism.
> JTD is right in saying that "the argument for restricting "commercial" use
> is a strawman". There are any number of contexts (I really wouldn't say
> 'misuse') where even copyrighted content can legitimately be put to fair --
> and profitable -- use as in, say, the use of film clippings, music videos
> or cricket highlights for telecast by TV news channels.
> Prevention of commercial use is, as JTD says, an unachievable goal.
> > The argument for restricting "commercial" use is a strawman argument
> > based on
> > a very simplistic understanding of business models. This restriction is
> > open
> > to all sorts of misuse. Anyone intending to use such content should do so
> > with the utmost caution. Things are not as simple as made out to be.
> > > regards
> > > Vivek
> > _______________________________________________
> > network mailing list
> > network at lists.fosscom.in
> > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
More information about the network