| I can safely say that I have never had a situation like this month; 3 long-time contributing member UFies being featured at the same time. Best of luck to Greg, John and Darren, our Geekfinder Featured Resumes for February!
Greg
..is an ex-employee (and current volunteer) of UF and is looking for a position as a linux systems administrator. He's capable of doing many
other things though, so take a look at his resume and see if you can use
him!...read full story & view resume
John
I recently was caught up in the corporate staffing cuts at CompUSA, and so am looking for a good IT job. I have several years experience in IT and related fields, and I am an expert at troubleshooting problems, computer and otherwise. I am not a programmer, but I have widespread knowledge of many OSes and applications...read full story & view resume
Darren
..is an Edmonton-based creative engineer by day and a
gypsy knife-eater by night. He is an old-school web developer, who has
developed several quality, content-driven websites by hand since 1995....read full story & view resume
I added another category to the GF Quicksearches: Tech Support...in honor of the current storyline, it's my way of showing gratitude to the guys and gals in the trenches. I know that there is crossover between sys admin and tech support, but as a keyword search in the dice system it yielded up a result set all its own. Check out these Geekfinder Quicksearches
Technical Support +650 available jobs
Systems Administrator +400 available jobs
Software Developer +275 available jobs
Database Administrator +175 available jobs
Network Administrator +100 available jobs
Quality Assurance +600 available jobs
 |
UF reader binkley posted this thoughtful essay on copyright
protection durations on January 19th. From his post:
Let me float one particular thing about copyright. In 1998 the US congress extended the US copyright law to
give protection from 50 to 75 years after the creator's death for IP retained by the creator's estate, and
from 70 to 95 years for that sold to a corporation. (These numbers are probably not exact, being from memory,
but are pretty close.)
As someone who should be rewarded financially for your creations, how do you feel about the duration of
that protection. Should it be shorter, longer, or is that about right? Should different forms of IP be
granted different longevity? Should corporations have a more limited duration, or does that unduely reduce
the value of the creator's asset? Note that the current law gives ~= protection assuming that the creator
lives 25 years after creating the the IP.
There is no question in my mind that the ridiculous length of copyright protection exists due to the deep
veins of money agendas running through the entire creative industry. If you consider the way things work,
it's not that surprising -- just about the only way a creator could acheive financial success is through the
established gatekeepers: writers have to go to publishers; cartoonists and columnists have to go to
syndicates; musicians have to go to record labels, and so on. This power the gatekeepers hold is due to their
control of awareness and distribution, and this still largely holds true. That control is eroding somewhat,
thanks to the very technology you're using to read this text.
In all of the debates regarding copyright length I think that a crucial point has been overlooked, a point
that gatekeepers really don't like to discuss: a creation is an expression of an individual's perspective,
and as such, can only really be owned (in the same sense that you own your thoughts) by that
individual. Of course, legalities and ethics don't always mesh well, and thanks to powerful lobbying efforts,
the ethics of creative ownership is drowned in a slurry of legal diarrhea.
There has only been one duration of copyright protection that makes sense to me: lifetime of the creator.
If I, as a creator, have invested time, creative effort and possibly money in the work that I offer to
others, I feel it just that I receive some kind of compensation for it. The degree of that compensation will,
of course, be dictated by how well the work is received, which leaves the success of a given creation in the
hands of those who appreciate it. This is both fair and equitable: If I fail to create something from which
people derive enjoyment or fulfillment, I don't deserve to be rewarded.
Once my life ends, my creations should pass into the public domain. No corporation should benefit from my
investment in expression of self after I have passed on. Rather than ownership, corporations should be limited
to licensing creations for the purpose of commercialization, and that license expires when the creator
does. Any heirs I may have, if they're lucky, will inherit whatever material wealth I own. Siblings, lovers
and offspring are not me -- they didn't invest a piece of themselves in my creations, and therefore should
not benefit from that very personal part of my estate. A copyright duration should treat everyone outside of
the creator equally, and family should be no exception.
There are some who may insist that a creator who has a dramatic impact on any given audience should retain
copyright after death; why this is so is beyond me. Money is of no consequence to those who have passed on, and
besides, a dead creator is compensated in a manner that far outstrips the value of a royalty cheque: an
audience's fond memories and a legacy derived from the expressions in his body of work.
After all, what price a soul?
|
