Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Creative Commons Humbug says Dvorak
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:38:36 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Jeffrey Kay <jeff () k2 com> Date: July 21, 2005 4:56:39 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: RE: [IP] Creative Commons Humbug says Dvorak Dave --Dvorak lashes out pretty hard on the CC system, but in his defense, there is one troubling aspect of CC that is worth noting. CC puts forth the notion that content should be distributed via license instead of copyright. Even
with the ever extending copyright term, there is a clear and important benefit to copyright that CC doesn't explicitly provide -- a term limit. After some point in time, copyrighted products become part of the public domain. Licensed products do not. Therefore, content licensed under the non-commercial proviso could conceivably _never_ become available for commercial use.In fairness, the CC licenses actually do refer to the "copyright" holder and
restricts the term of the license to that of applicable copyright law.However, just as software is distributed under license, there's no reason that other content types couldn't be distributed exclusively under licenses also (think music here). For example, a subscriber to a newspaper could be required to sign a license indicating the appropriate uses of the paper (no
criticism of articles, no quoting, etc).So the problem that I have with CC is that it promotes the idea of licenses as a replacement for copyright, which ultimately will fail to fulfill the
original (good) intent of copyright -- that our creative works (after wehave profited from them for a brief time) ultimately belong in the public domain for the good of the commons. Our legislature seems to have forgotten
that as it continues to lengthen the copyright term. Creative Commons should make a statement about this by providing a mechanism (or arequirement) for an explicit limit on the license before the work becomes
part of the public domain. -- jeff jeffrey kay | jeff () k2 com | aim <jkayk2> -----Original Message-----From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of
David Farber Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:49 PM To: ip () v2 listbox com Subject: [IP] Creative Commons Humbug says Dvorak -----Original Message----- From: "Jason Levine"<ip () list masshole us> Sent: 7/21/05 9:43:13 AM To: "dave () farber net"<dave () farber net> Subject: Re: [IP] Creative Commons Humbug says Dvorak Dave, I have to say that Dvorak doesn't seem to have ANY idea what Creative Commons is, and lashes out at his misunderstandings rather than fact in this piece. To point out just a few misunderstandings or inaccuracies: "You sign up with the group and post a message saying that your material is protected or covered by Creative Commons. This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes. Why not commercial purposes?" CC offers a whole variety of licenses, only some of which include a noncommercial provision. The list of generic licenses is located athttp://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses, and in that list of
six, only three of them include noncommercial stipulations; the other three grant full commercial reproduction rights to consumers of thelicensed work. And that's not including all the other license options --
sampling licenses, founders license, music sharing license, developing nations license, and public domain dedication, to name some."Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something.
And that has not changed. And I could always use excerpts for commercialor noncommercial purposes. It's called fair use. I can still do that, but Creative Commons seems to hint that with its license means that I cannot. At least not if I'm a commercial site and the noncommercial proviso is in
effect. This is a bogus suggestion, because Creative Commons does not supersede the copyright laws." CC exists, in part, to prevent consumers from having to go through the begging-for-the-right-to-use-something dance -- if the CC license saysthat it's OK to use a work for the purpose you want to, then that's that,
it's clear, unambiguous, and defensible. Likewise, nothing that CC doeslimits fair use, but rather exists to clarify rights beyond fair use (Can I use this code in my product? Can I sample this track in my song? Can I
create an e-book out of this novel?). Dvorak is precisely RIGHT, though, in his last sentence in that quote -- CC doesn't supersede copyright laws, it clarifies how they apply toindividually-licensed works. To put it better, if I publish an article on
my website without any licensing info attached, it's assumed to be entirely copyrighted, and consumers have almost no right to reuse it(beyond fair use, etc.). If I publish it with a CC "attribution" license,
that makes it clear that I hold NO copyright to the work other than I demand that, if someone else uses it in their work, they attribute my contribution. "There's another thing that bugs me about Creative Commons. When you see its licenses the wording will say something like "Creative Commons License: Public domain." This means that the item is not covered by copyright but is in the public domain. So what's Creative Commons got todo with it? Public domain is public domain. It's not something granted by
Creative Commons." This is the paragraph that shows that Dvorak might actually understandmore than he lets on -- since it shows that he knows there's a CC offering that DOES allow commercial use of a work (despite his earlier frustration
at there being no commercial allowances). But it's also based in a misunderstanding, since again CC is merely allowing a work's producer to unambiguously declare the work in the public domain. (In fact, the process through which the producer has to go to use the public domaingrant makes this clear: "The Public Domain Dedication is not a license. By
using it, you do not simply carve out exceptions to your copyright; yougrant your entire copyright to the public without condition. This grant is permanent and irreversible.") All it would have taken was Dvorak clicking on a single link -- http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain -- to
see that text and better understand that against which he railed. The last quote is my favorite: "Creative Commons trying to insert itself as another layer into a system that already protects content developers like me to an extreme." Alas, CC is trying to protect both content developers AND CONTENTCONSUMERS -- by helping developers make unambiguous statements about what
is allowable and forbidden. Right now, the copyright system assumes the worst, that developers/producers want to retain every and all right over their work for as long as possible. CC's aim is to make clear that this isn't always the case, and help producers attach easy-to-understand, but legally-vetted, licenses to their works which help consumers and users understand. Dvorak's piece bothered me less because he so clearly misunderstands CCbut that, in the name of fighting for better copyright law, he promulgates incorrect information that actually will dissuade people from using a tool
that actually helps balance the copyright tables and give users rights that they wouldn't otherwise have. Jason Levine On Thu, July 21, 2005 9:14 am, David Farber wrote:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1838244,00.asp Will someone explain to me the benefits of a trendy system developedby Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford? Dubbed Creative Commons, this system is some sort of secondary copyright license that, as far as I can tell, does absolutely nothing but threaten the already tenuous "fair use" provisos of existing copyright law. This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye- rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous newclothes. If you are unfamiliar with this thing, be sure to go to the Web siteand see if you can figure it out. Creative Commons actually seems to be adangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law. <snip> ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as ip () list masshole us To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as jeff () k2 com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Creative Commons Humbug says Dvorak David Farber (Jul 21)