[cc-licenses] Lawyers aren't humans
Jim Sowers
jim at spincycle.org
Wed Nov 22 02:21:30 EST 2006
Hi Andres,
I agree--I don't mind hearing (and telling) lawyer jokes. At the risk of
beating a dead horse, my point is less about being sensitive to lawyers, and
more about communicating accessibility to non-lawyers. In other words, if
someone sees "human-readable", it can also imply that mere mortals should
not attempt to read the actual license because it will be too difficult;
licenses can only be understood by those special people, lawyers. I know
"human-readable" it is meant to be cute and funny, but the other side of the
coin is a certain condescension about which I think the drafters should at
least be aware.
Jim Sowers
On 11/21/06, Andres Guadamuz <a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> To be fair, the line "we all know lawyers aren't human" always gets a
> good laugh at conferences :)
>
> There's nothing like a good self-deprecating lawyer joke to break the
> ice with non-legal audiences.
>
> Andres
>
> Jim Sowers wrote:
> > When I was in law school, back in 1986 ;-( I took a contract writing
> > class. It had a lasting effect on me. We practiced writing in plain
> > English -- the teacher worked for Bank of America, and because they
> > had lost some cases because courts had found their contracts to be
> > unintelligible to the average consumer (the other party to the
> > contract), BofA found religion and started re-writing their contracts.
> >
> > We studied a law review article by Richard Wydick, Plain English for
> > Lawyers, which is now in its 3rd edition as a book, and which I
> > mentioned in an earlier post to this list. The SEC has also imposed a
> > "plain English" requirement on filings. I think CC has done a pretty
> > good job on this front (with the notable exception of the excessive,
> > and I would argue improper, use of the word "such" as a definite
> > article, see my earlier post).
> >
> > Nevertheless, I think the line at the bottom of the deed that reads
> > "This is a human-readable summary ..." is unfortunate. Obviously, CC
> > intends to say that it is a simple summary for non-lawyers. Some will
> > think that I'm being too sensitive here, however, I believe that using
> > the term "human-readable", aside from reinforcing some of the nastier
> > stereotypes about lawyers, also reinforces the idea that lawyers use a
> > different, incomprehensible language. I find that two types of
> > lawyers tend to do so: those not confident enough to make things
> > simple -- e.g., afraid to replace "any and all" with just "any", and
> > those who are pompous and throw in every heretofore and therewith to
> > add to the cloak of mystery around what it is to practice law.
> > Finally, some of the worst examples come from non-lawyers trying to
> > "write like lawyers".
> >
> > Thus, I would change the terminology to reflect "summary" v.
> > "detailed" rather than "human" v. "lawyer" -- as even the detailed
> > documents should be eminently readable by humans; those are the kinds
> > of documents really good lawyers write.
> >
> > Jim Sowers
> > Lawyer :-) (DJ, Dance Teacher, Motorcycle Adventurer)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/21/06, *Andres Guadamuz * <a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk
> > <mailto:a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
> >
> > Luis,
> >
> > While I don't know if there was any sort of doctrinal
> > consideration with
> > the creation of the Commons Deed, I can tell you that at least in
> > Scotland we drafted the licences under the requirement of writing
> > form
> > contracts in "plain intelligible language" contained in section 6
> > of the
> > the UK's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:
> > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm
> > <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andres
> >
> > Luis Villa wrote:
> > > Hey, all (but really primarily to the lawyers on the list :)-
> > >
> > > As I was stumbling through Contracts this morning (specifically, a
> > > lecture on interpretation of contracts) I was reminded of the
> human
> > > readable versions of CC contracts/licenses. The question that
> > came to
> > > mind: were those inspired by any particular strain of academic
> > thought
> > > on license legibility/usability? Or did they just come out of a
> > > general ease-of-use impulse? If there was a strain of academic
> > thought
> > > on the issue that was inspirational or otherwise important, any
> > > pointers to where I could start reading?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance- let me know if my question itself is
> > incomprehensible :)
> > > Luis
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-licenses mailing list
> > > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Andres Guadamuz
> > AHRC Research Centre for Studies in
> > Intellectual Property and Technology Law
> > Old College, South Bridge
> > Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
> >
> > Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699
> > Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317
> > a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk <mailto:a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk>
> > http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/
> >
> > IP/IT/Medical Law LLM by Distance Learning
> > http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/distancelearning/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> > <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
>
> --
> Andres Guadamuz
> AHRC Research Centre for Studies in
> Intellectual Property and Technology Law
> Old College, South Bridge
> Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
>
> Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699
> Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317
> a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk
> http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/
>
> IP/IT/Medical Law LLM by Distance Learning
> http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/distancelearning/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20061121/7274f733/attachment.htm
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list