[cc-community] Critique a short essay on Free music?

Andrew Rens andrewrens at gmail.com
Wed Nov 7 00:45:47 EST 2007


On 07/11/2007, Kyle Williams <kylewilliams at openwarriors.org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 07 November 2007 06:27:22 Andrew Rens wrote:
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > As you probably guessed, in such a large and wonderfully diverse
> community
> > we don't all agree.
> >
> > There are obviously very many who don't agree with Lucas's claim that
> > Attribution ShareAlike is "not anti-copyright" since under current
> > conditions Share-Alike and similar licences (such as GNU GPL) subvert
> > copyright by keeping work open for re-use, thus ensuring it remains in
> the
> > commons, rather than being appropriated by someone else.
>
> Not exactly. Works under copyleft licenses are still the copyrighted works
> of
> the author. However, the author chooses to waiver some of the inherent
> copyright restrictions, ie. those relating to sharing and copying. So I
> agree
> with Lucas, it's not "anti-copyright," anti-copyright exists only in the
> public domain.


On the contrary what I said exactly is that under current copyright
conditions,
GPL and Share-Alike are subversive of copyright.

All rights reserved copyright applies to all creative works through the
function of law. Therefore not to apply any licence automatically leaves the
work in an all rights reserved state.
To apply any licence at all, including an Attribution only, or even a Public
Domain dedication, relies on copyright law for its efficacy.
Furthermore if one applies an Attribution only or Public Domain dedication
then one leaves the work open for appropriation into proprietary formats by
other people. Therefore to place works under those licences is not
especially subversive of copyright, i.e. anti-copyright since further
versions of the work are automatically all rights reserved.
However further versions/derivatives of Share-Alike and GPL works must
licensed so that they remain open. That is far more subversive of copyright
than a mere attribution licence.
However even if you don't agree with this last point, the first remains
which is that any licence/public domain dedication relies on copyright law
for its efficacy, and attempt to escape current copyright law, begins by
making use of the rights given to an author under copyright law, and thats
the same for any licence.


If you ever listen to, or read Richard Stallman, you'll always hear him
> say, "The GPL is a copyright license."


Obviously, and so is Attribution only, and even a Public Domain dedication
because all rely on the rights vested in authors by copyright law.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20071107/b6ac3912/attachment.htm 


More information about the cc-community mailing list