Undolog.com

The publication of content by users is something revolutionary about that, thanks to the Internet, is showing all its advantages (and most beautiful) and all its flaws (and a few useless). Once only a small number of people had the ability to disseminate information, in any form. The rest of humanity watched and learned, with difficulty gaining the ability to replicate or have his say. Today, through the network, anyone within minutes is able to provide content: text, graphics, video, audio, ...

However, the human being, in its immense hypocrisy, continually modifies the point of view depending on the circumstances and interests. So link can become a crime! Copy & Paste The risks becoming an instrument to be certified only to a select few, so jump back again a hundred years!

Why can not repeat what I said to someone else? Especially since you do not draw a direct and immediate benefit in money?

Internet is putting a strain on the human intellect concerning the Protection of - so called - copyright. A writer, however, it seems clear that there is an error of interpretation, an obvious confusion between theft, then understood as a violation of the rights of an author, and mass information, where the author seems to me that more protected! Indeed! Sky, for example, should not unnecessarily excited for the sequence of bits borrowed from TG COM . Certainly, the TG COM, is a particular element in this case as it earns with his information, that is an element that aims to profit! However, respecting the original author (quoting), it also derives from a - obviously - advantage, at least image.

The protection of a work, then, is very complex and detailed argument. First you need to identify the work that may be all or nothing. Immediately after you have to understand what is meant to protect! A Movies (a work so ...?) Is protected when it is copied? However, it is permissible to stop a movie with commercials! It is permissible to superimpose images in advertising films and TV series?!

So allow me a digression to understand how the human being, in this case, it is crucial to address the issue and with the right pressupposti but with disastrous results!

As you all know a song is perceived by us as a series of waves, sound waves in this case. When I listen to an MP3 file from my PC speakers transform the electrical signal into mechanical motion through the inner membranes, which, moving quickly create waves in the air circonstante. Waves arriving at my ears. Paradoxically, when we watch a movie on our TV we have a situation comparable. The CRT, or Plasma screen for the more fortunate, transforms an electrical signal into light waves. Watch a movie or play a song always has to do with waves. However, the visual waves may be disfigured by superimposing them banner advertisements or interrupting with other waves of different types.
If you were applying the same logic to a song you imagine what would happen! Banner ads become voices in the song, the ads become more songs - or whatever - that would interrupt the listen every n minutes ... absurd ... unthinkable ... but we allow for the videos at your leisure!

In short, the protection seems to me very vague topic to date, conitnuamente subject to revisions of the moment, just to assert their interests. Put a movie in DivX on YouTube does not damage the work more than do the advertisements on any network (including SKY with its bannerini Christmas).

Copying and exploitation for profit is quite another thing and, I think, have nothing to do with the social network, real genuine expression of that humanity which, in my opinion, would have other things to deal with ... for now!

More ...