[cc-community] Critique a short essay on Free music?
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Nov 7 08:05:42 EST 2007
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 23:43:32 Kyle Williams 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.
This is a point of view argument. Both sides are saying something "true"...
Copyleft is anti-copyright, but it has to use the copyright law to undo the
effects of copyright law.
Public domain is not so much anti-copyright as it is non-copyright. I would
say it is not anti-copyright as if you put your work into the public domain
on purpose, you should know that you are allowing COPYRIGHT derivatives of
it.
>
> If you ever listen to, or read Richard Stallman, you'll always hear him
> say, "The GPL is a copyright license."
It sure is a copyright license, that does not mean it is not one which uses
copyright law to undo the effects of copyright law in the realm of computer
code.
How many copyleft supporters would prefer no copyright laws to the current
state of affairs - especially in the absence of copyleft licensing?
>
> > On 07/11/2007, Lucas Gonze <lucas.gonze at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In this new age, copyright seems quaint and redundant.
> > >
> > > The Attribution-ShareAlike license you are using is not anti-copyright
> > > at all. It is a strong assertion of your copyright.
> > >
> > > So you might want to rethink this statement. It seems to me that your
> > > angle is about who copyright is working for -- the listener and
> > > musician, or the investor -- rather than about the existence of
> > > copyright.
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list