Creative Commons Humbug says Dvorak

["David Farber" <dave () farber net>]

-----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 at
http://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 the
licensed 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 commercial
or 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 says
that 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 does
limits 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 to
individually-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 to
do 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 understand
more 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 domain
grant makes this clear: "The Public Domain Dedication is not a license. By
using it, you do not simply carve out exceptions to your copyright; you
grant 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 CONTENT
CONSUMERS -- 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 CC
but 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 developed
> by 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 new
> clothes.
>
> If you are unfamiliar with this thing, be sure to go to the Web site
> and see if you can figure it out. Creative Commons actually seems to be a
> dangerous 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 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/