Re: [Commons-l] Cool tool that lets you check for copyright renewals on books

Peter Blaise responds: "... scrutinised ..." by whom? No one but the parties to the original contract have any authority over that contract, including the courts, should the original property owner or licensee not want to pursue a court settlement. By what authority does anyone other than the original property owner have the right or is empowered or obliged to scrutinize someone else's use to that property, to demand to see a satisfactory licensing contract, and to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the contract? Are Wikipedia and Commons willing to indemnify viewers and linkers against subsequent lawsuits for any and every thing contained in Wikipedia and Commons? Are Wikipedia and Commons so absolutely confident that their intellectual property rights "quality assurance" is accurate, appropriate, thorough and complete, up to infallible and incontestable standards to the satisfaction of the original intellectual property rights owners and licensees? No? Then why are they wasting their time trying to anticipate the desires and whims of intellectual property rights owners and licensees - something we can do for ourselves on our own very well, than you very much. Peter Blaise responds: I disagree. Viewing a web page is like viewing my car on the street. Neither the owner of the "street" nor the visiting viewer has any authority to scrutinize and pass judgment on my ownership or license of the property in question. While I appreciate that we all want to protect each other's intellectual property rights, that does not suddenly empower any of us, even as publishers, to become the intellectual property police. I believe that the best way to protect intellectual property rights is to honor them ourselves and set a stellar, sterling example by policing our own intellectual property, not by trying to preemptively police other people's presumed intellectual property agreements or lack of agreements. I do not expect to have to PROVE to Xerox that I have permission to copy something before I use a Xerox machine. The Internet changes nothing, permission wise. Neither Xerox nor Wikipedia admins nor Commons admins nor ISP admins have any right (nor empowerment nor SKILL) to police my use of their publicly available service, copyright wise. As always, intellectual property interests are in the purview of the intellectual property owners, just as any property interests are in the purview of the property owners. Try this: Prospective customer: "Hi, I'd like to rent your plane to photograph the city from above." Pilot: "I'm afraid I might get sued for transporting stolen property. Before I'll let you use my otherwise publicly available service, you must first PROVE to my whimsical satisfaction that you own your camera gear. I don't like receipt - they can be faked. I want a notarized statement form the previous owner of the transfer of ownership to you. I want 3 IDs that you are who you say you are, too." Can you imagine if everyone offering a public service felt compelled and empowered to scrutinize their prospective customer's rights before they let the public partake in their otherwise publicly offered services? Can't enter a restaurant without proving you didn't steal the money you're planning to pay with! And those are your clothes, right? Got a receipt? And my restaurant's standards for an acceptable receipt is w-a-y tougher than other restaurants - because I, as a restaurant owner, don't wanna get sued ... or worse, I, as a restaurant employee, don't want to get fired, so I'm inflicting my brand of overzealous scrutiny on whomever I dang well please! So, bottom line, what we're saying here is that non-property rights owner's fears of getting sued are the overriding concern, so our ability to freely share with each other will be constrained along those lines. Any volunteers to live in THAT world? - Peter Blaise