[cc-community] No Hard Copy Distribution Condition (Let's discuss)
Ocetalo
zelus.et.radix at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 09:49:55 EST 2008
*Well, I don't see it this way exactly. I think BY-SA and BY are fine for
important works as well.
*
Please give real examples, or some you consider would be successful.
*I am not so much CC and non-CC. I am more Free non-Free.*
I don't understand.
*We may need to grow in our understanding of misusing someone's words to
imply
beliefs on their part which they do not hold.
*
*And we may need to be more sophisticated in understanding that what someone
may think (as in have a thought) and be willing to express as a thought that
they had, may not be what they believe. And that even some things that thet
believe may not be sure, firm, and settled beliefs.
*
That's right, but one can't forget that not every people in the world is so
sophisticated (taking "sophisticated" as a neutral, not necessarily positive
term). There are many who have sure, firm and settled beliefs, and their
radical thinking should be respected, too. However, I still believe CC is
not for them.
*How much stuff is supposedly getting passed around the net today that the
owners of the copyrights on the works are supposedly not OK with and yet the
passing around is still going strong? Sometimes I think you can get
something
spread faster by getting it banned or such.
*
That's a fact. Laws on moral rights can prevent organizations from misusing
by risk of prosecution but, as you say, there's no way to
*effectively*prevent misuse. Not on Earth.
On Feb 12, 2008 9:30 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008 18:33:47 Ocetalo wrote:
> > Until this point, I have reached one first conclusion from this
> interesting
> > discussion:
> > CC is fine for blogs, posts, "easy" expression, but any work deemed as
> > serious stuff and delicate matter which may offend the sensibilities of
> > certain people/group or bring unwanted, greatly damaging consecuences in
> > real world (the word has power) for the author and/or third parties, CC
> is
> > not recommended.
> > That's pretty good. CC is intended to make easy that what should be easy
> > but for some reason is not, isn't it?
>
> Well, I don't see it this way exactly. I think BY-SA and BY are fine for
> important works as well.
>
> I am not so much CC and non-CC. I am more Free non-Free.
>
> We may need to grow in our understanding of misusing someone's words to
> imply
> beliefs on their part which they do not hold.
>
> And we may need to be more sophisticated in understanding that what
> someone
> may think (as in have a thought) and be willing to express as a thought
> that
> they had, may not be what they believe. And that even some things that
> thet
> believe may not be sure, firm, and settled beliefs.
>
> Surely, some real damaging users are happy to do the damage even if they
> break
> copyright law to do so.
>
> How much stuff is supposedly getting passed around the net today that the
> owners of the copyrights on the works are supposedly not OK with and yet
> the
> passing around is still going strong? Sometimes I think you can get
> something
> spread faster by getting it banned or such.
>
> Just a mix of thoughts there.
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080213/860a14d7/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the cc-community
mailing list