[cc-community] More discussion on NC
a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk
Mon Oct 11 03:49:31 EDT 2010
On 10/10/2010 20:54, drew Roberts wrote:
>> Freedom is a nice word, but why begrudge the freedom of those of us who
>> prefer to licence under an NC licence?
> Because it takes away the freedom of others perhaps? Some certainly think this
> way and they may indeed be right.
> Personally it is because it continues to feed a copyright system gone crazy.
Let me see if I can get my head around this. In order to make sure that
other people's freedom is maintained, I have to give up my own freedom,
is that correct?
This is what bothers me about the debate. The moral imperative that I
must behave in a certain way stinks of religious fundamentalism, and so
my freedom is in no way important as long as the ideal is maintained and
the freedoms of supposed hordes of downstream users is placed above my
This is bizarre double-think in my opinion.
>> Again, I am not saying NC should always prevail, but people are voting
>> with their feet and making conscious decisions.
> Many indeed are. People are allowed to try and persuade them otherwise though.
And I'm afraid will fail because of the moral tone with which is done. I
repeat again that I am persuaded by the anti-NC argument, but I will
continue to exercise my conscious decision to use NC under certain
>> Not in the UK. An one cannot publish an academic book as
>> self-publishing. Well, one can, but it has no academic recognition
>> whatsoever. Academic publishing still relies on the gate keepers.
> Really? Do you go to jail if you self publish an academic book in the UK? Ah,
> no recognition... So academics there are too "&*%$$" to recognize quality
> without some official stamp of approval? What? And if so, this is a good
> state of affairs?
On the whole? I think yes. Self-publishing works in other areas, but in
academia peer-review still reigns supreme. The fact that the book has
been accepted by an academic publisher means that the proposal has been
reviewed by peers and has passed a certain quality test.
I am just saying what works in my case, the academic publishing market
is already undergoing a revolution in journal publishing thanks to open
access, but the monograph market is still different. Will it change in
the future? I don't know, but the gate keepers exist for a reason.
>> No, I am just noting that people's reasons for choosing NC are varied,
>> and should not be reduced to narrow ideological decisions about what
>> people should and should not do with their works.
> So, if not for money reason, why not self publish under a Free license? The
> material would still be out there. Who would not use it? Who would not be
> allowed to use it? Why?
For me it is because of academic recognition. It is not about money for
me, but it is for the publishers (it is their business). I do not expect
to make any money from the book, but they do. Fair enough, as an
academic I want a publication from a reputable publisher, and I am
delighted that I managed to convince them to publish under a CC licence.
Their argument in favour of NC is that they retain the exlusive right of
commercial exploitation. So, if a competitor wants to release a version
of my book, they can't.
>> Yes, I know I tend to
>> favour wishy-washy "let's all get together", but I cannot tell someone
>> who chooses to release proprietary software that they are wrong, or that
>> someone who chooses to release under an NC licence is wrong. People have
>> different reasons for doing things, it's part of their freedom to choose
>> whichever licensing they prefer.
> And the "freedom" to take another's freedom is called?
This is really what lies at the heart of your argument, and I think that
there is something strange with it. I make a work, it is MY work and I
should have the freedom to choose how it is distributed. While I think
that in many circumstances the best option is to choose some form of
open distribution, this is not always the case.
So, I am free to make whatever decision I can about my work, we both
agree with that. But what I find bizarre is that if I decide to exercise
my freedom in one way, I am taking another's freedom. This is simply
wrong in my view. People have the freedom of coming into my flat and
taking all of my possessions. Is my putting a lock on my door infringing
Granting other people freedom to use my work is granting them this
freedom, but equally if they don't get that freedom it is not an
infringement on their freedom. This is a fundamental issue about rights
and freedoms. Not everyone has the inherent right to use things I
produce for free, I have to grant them that right.
School of Law
Old College, South Bridge
Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
+44 131 6509699
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
More information about the cc-community