[cc-community] NC, anticapitalism and clashing visions of freedom - was: More discussion on NC
geniice at gmail.com
Wed Nov 3 17:21:44 EDT 2010
On 3 November 2010 20:34, Lloyd <cc at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> We are not confused we are well aware that CC-NC means "No Pimps".
Debatable. In particular unless you are prepared to argue that it
would breach the license to upload NC content to say an angelfire
webpage there is an obvious opportunity for pimps.
> Over on wikipedia they are discovering the number of companies packaging
> slight WP articles and selling them at eye watering prices. Some are
> advertised as WP articles others not. But however they are advertised its
> bad it is bad news for WP. Someone disappointed by these 'books' is going to
> think that, with WP copyright, they are WP sanctioned.
Nope. So far no evidence that anyone thinks they are wikipedia
sanctioned. In any case this is nothing new. The traditional model
involved repackaging US gov statistics. The real game changers are
print on demand and the fact that amazon essentially offers them free
advertising. The source of the content is secondary.
> That is your take on the issue but it is by no means a universal view. In
> fact I would say that the free culture movement has been stolen and led
> astray by capitalist apologists looking for a new group of idealistic youth
> to bamboozle and exploit.
Comparing your position to a mythical event is an odd choice.
> Good luck with that. Mega Media Corp has the power, werewithall, and
> technology to ensure that their rights are maintained, and that any upstarts
> are locked out.
> And if you don't think they haven't already found away to cash in on mashups
> think again.
> Back in 2007 the head lawyer for Viacom said that they had no real problem
> with people doing mashups of their output what they were really concerned
> about were the vanilla copies. Here is him repeating that message last year.
You are aware that it would be a breach of CC-BY-SA to upload someone
else's CC-BY-SA content to youtube (the problem is that you don't
have some of the rights that youtube asks you to release in order to
> It really is a bit much stealing clothes and then trying to sell them back
> to the people they were stolen from. We aren't buying. The commercialization
> of content by those that add nothing to the content but a price tag has
> nothing to do with free culture. Free culture has been about for 100s of
> years and it has nothing to do with allowing the exploiter a freebie.
Where does the code in the linux kernel come from these days?
> This week I had an email from a musical society about a photograph of a
> stone carving of a pipe player from about 1340. They'll use it in lectures,
> website, magazine, and later when I come around to documenting the image
> they'll provide some background information on the instrument and players in
> medieval times. Free Culture is not advanced by the image appearing on a
> packet of crisps.
However at least one of those uses and probably more would not be
allowed by a strict reading of NC.
More information about the cc-community