[cc-sampling] sampling/recombo
David
david at locarecords.com
Thu Aug 5 14:44:11 EDT 2004
Glenn,
So really no justification at all really? Just that you felt like it.
Hmmm.
And this list is purely a really annoying thorn in your side as it has
strong opinions, and arguments that can sometimes get extremely heated?
Shock! But that is called deliberation and the reason people deliberate
is to give legitimacy to the project associated with it. That's *why*
you carry out the process.
Really Glenn, you email comes across as extremely cynical - when it
suits you you listen to the list, when you disagree or have become
bored with it, you ignore it.
The naming of things is one of the most important moments in a project,
because naming situates a project and creates a discourse. And allowing
the group to name it and then *overrule* that naming is extremely
thoughtless.
I am sure that *everyone* on this list works extremely hard on other
projects. I am equally sure *everyone* on this list has committed time
and effort with the best of intentions to improve the project. You are
not alone in wanting the project to succeed.
But, please don't dictate to me what I should, or should not, think is
important. I happen to believe that over-ruling a group decision
because you were all so excited to be in Brazil on the night of a
launch party is no justification whatsoever. I find the arrogance of
the move suprising considering how much debate the issue stirred
(before eventually and democratically agreeing on the name - 'sampling'
license) moreso considering the importance of keeping a community of
creative people on-board with the project.
But maybe that doesn't matter any more. Maybe now the Creative Commons
is becoming a success you no longer need to listen and debate with the
messy, complaining, irritating, opinionated artists, musicians and
designers... But I happen to think that is a real shame, and extremely
myopic.
Regards
David
----
http://www.locarecords.com
On 5 Aug 2004, at 08:58, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> I think the most important point here is: let's not miss the forest
> for the trees, let alone the *names* of the trees. This whole thing is
> about the name of a license. Just say that a few times out loud, and
> think about everything else going on in the world, and even in the
> world of copyright, before reading onward.
>
> Now on to the details.
>
> (1) The change is just in name (yes, this will be a refrain):
>
> The license hasn't changed a bit in substance -- not at all, not even
> a letter. It still embodies Negativland's idea for free transformative
> derivatives. It still contains the ban on advertising -- an idea
> which, for those of you who have been on the list from the beginning
> will remember, I originally opposed as untenable, but which we wound
> up including in the license anyway -- and which I now come to see as
> absolutely crucial, as Negativland's arguments have sunk in over time.
> I think this fact -- and the fact we have had this discussion publicly
> at all -- say a lot about (1) how much we care about this license
> being good and (2) how much we truly value and act on input. Aspects
> of this license -- the license itself, actually -- would not exist if
> we hadn't established and listened to this list.
>
> (2) The change isn't necessarily permanent or irreversible:
>
> Like everything we do, there's room and time for change, if that's
> what is necessary. So don't spaz. It's not like we took the dollar off
> the gold standard or blew up a dam and flooded a village. Get some
> perspective. If disaster ensues, if people's heads explode trying to
> decipher the meaning of the word Recombo, we'll consider changing it.
>
> (3) Go ahead
>
> As Kelty notes, if people want to continue calling it Sampling, I'm
> not going to send out our standing million-man army to stop you. (No,
> wait, that's China with the million-man army; we have 5 full-time
> employees, some part-timers, and a lot of great volunteers, but none
> of them is particularly prone to or capable of repression.) Please, do
> as you wish.
>
> (4) The change to Recombo:
>
> When we launched Creative Commons in Brazil, part of the process was
> to translate the sampling licenses. In the process, the Brazil
> volunteers renamed the license "Recombinacao," the Portuguese
> translation.
>
> (a) The night before the big event in Porto Alegre (described in the
> links posted earlier to this list), the Brazil team and the CC team
> started talking about the names of the licenses, and we thought it
> would be cool to have an internationalized name -- one more or less
> pronounceable and understandable across many countries (because based
> on a latin root). In every way we're trying to become a more
> international organization; wouldn't it be cool if we could coin an
> international-friendly term that conveyed the the full range of
> possibilities, we thought? The license is not merely about "sampling"
> after all. (Plus, this list had exactly zero feedback from non-English
> speaking representatives. Might be nice to give them some input, I
> thought.)
>
> (b) Our Brazilian project lead Ronaldo said that re:combo was the name
> of a avant garde art movement in northern Brazil that perfectly
> embodied the spirit of the license; that was a nice little
> coincidence. Icing.
>
> (c) Next, and of particular importance, this was a decision made in
> the excitement of the moment -- when we knew we'd have an audience of
> 1000 people (yes, 1000 people came) hearing about CC for the first
> time in their home country; when our highest-profile licensor by far
> (Gil) was about to release a song; when the largest newspaper in
> Brazil had just run a front page story in its entertainment section in
> Brazil on the entire event, and more Brazilian press was poised to
> follow-up.
>
> (d) Most important, it seemed like a nice gesture to Mr. Gil and the
> Brazil team, who have put in many months of work to make Creative
> Commons a possibility in Brazil. They have put in at least as much
> time and constructive effort as the leads on this list, and far more
> than almost everyone else on this list combined.
>
> And let's not forget -- or maybe I haven't been clear enough about
> this on this list, which is my fault -- that Gil brought us the idea
> for this license around the same time Negativland did. The Brazil team
> has done an amazing job making Creative Commons a reality in a hugely
> important country in the global IP debate. This email list got the
> opportunity to create the actual license, and I'm very grateful for
> that. But I hope it's not so controversial that another crucial
> Creative Commons stakeholder from another part of the world got to
> contribute in their own way -- without *in any way* affecting the
> substance of the license? I hope this diplomatic point gets through,
> now that I've explained it, and I am sorry I didn't take the time to
> explain it before.
>
> (5) My fault
>
> I do wish I'd made this explanation earlier, just to give you insight
> on our thinking on this. But I really didn't think it would be this
> big a deal. It's just the *name* of the license, after all. Full
> explanations take a lot of time and energy sometimes, particularly on
> this list, which frankly can get very tedious and talk-talk-talk with
> little resolution. Which leads me to my next point:
>
> (6) My participation on this list
>
> I, like most people, when confronted with a choice between (a) doing
> important work that does not give me a headache and (b) doing
> important work that gives me a massive headache, will choose (a).
> Now, most of the discussion on this list has been hugely productive.
> Negativland's substantive contributions are invaluable. But there have
> been many times in the past when my heart sinks just to think about
> reading the latest 2000-word diatribe about this or that, with exactly
> no positive, constructive recommendation resulting. (You think I
> exaggerate? Just pick an email from the archive.) Let alone to go
> about responding, only to be ignored or have words put in my mouth or
> fantastic paranoid scenarios of Halliburtonesque scope attributed to
> me. I guess it'd be nice to be so powerful, but if I were, I wouldn't
> be typing a response an email list at midnight, would I?
>
> Early on on this list I proposed that Attribution be an optional
> element in the license, only to be told that this would be
> "anti-artist" and that attribution was the key to getting artist
> participation. So I agreed and switched my position. I was then told,
> by the same person, that requiring Attribution was "fascist." (The
> ideological hyperbole on this list is really something else.)
>
> All this is to say that participating on this list is a massive pain,
> much more than anything I've seen on any list we have. I'm not drawn
> to spend a lot of time doing unnecessarily painful things, or
> (incredibly) to being cast a villain or tyrant. I bust my ass for and
> care a lot about this organization and I don't have to have my time
> wasted after a certain point. You'll forgive me for avoiding the
> headache from time to time, when other work needs tending to.
>
> (7) The purpose of this list
>
> The purpose of this list is not to vote, and even less to have squeaky
> wheels determine outcomes. I've been over this before, but here it is
> again. (See attached image or this page:
> http://creativecommons.org/discuss)
>
> This image makes clear: ultimately CC is going to make the decision.
> That decision doesn't have to be final, forever, but it does have to
> come from us ultimately. Those who work here have a fiduciary duty to
> this organization. You do not. I shouldn't really have to explain
> that. And if you think that there's no difference between (a) an
> advisory list, with several public suggestions being folded into the
> final product, and (b) no list at all, I really can't help you.
>
> I would think that you'd understand if we're more open about the
> fundamentals of the license (what really matters) than we are about
> marketing (all this about the *name* of a license?). And besides, like
> I said, the lack of consultation on the name change was mostly a
> function of (1) a time crunch and (2) consideration for other players
> in the CC universe who happen not to be on this list.
>
> Again, I apologize for not explaining all this more quickly. Again, if
> the sky falls on us, we'll consider changing the name. In the
> meantime, let's recognize exactly what all this is about:
>
> You all were genuinely instrumental in helping create the actual
> license. As a matter of marketing and international goodwill and
> timing, we changed its NAME. If we've made an error in judgment, it's
> our error, not yours, and we can always change it back. (Just as we've
> changed many things about our other licenses after getting feedback
> from the public: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216)
>
> In the grand scheme of things -- the forest, the actual struggle that
> we're all involved in -- this is big whoop over not much.
>
>
>
> <discuss-full.gif>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-sampling mailing list
> cc-sampling at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
More information about the cc-sampling
mailing list