[Icommons] i just wanna be a pop star

Marcell Mars m at rcell.net
Tue Jun 19 07:18:27 EDT 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ppl use licensing to try to protect works from 'nonfair' use and/or
remix whatever that means in particular context. there are several ways
how we can define 'nonfair'. the one is like in free software to say that
it is 'nonfair' if it is non free and we have the free software definition
to look for the criteria. the other way is to precisely define what is
'fair use' which becomes more and more difficult as we go toward the
development of digital technologies.

when it comes to pay off (attention or traditional economy) ppl in
general consider that original author should make the most (or at least
'fair') amount of that pay off. the great thing about free software is
that it challenged business to change radically if it wants to deal with
free software. red hat, canonical, ibm, novell, nokia all try to adopt
to it. even tivo found it's own way. some says that tivo is even too
creative for the gpl2 ;)

however we saw the radical change in the field of business because of the
free software. gpl didn't really protect software developers as much as
it kept software free so the new (better) ecosystem was set up instead
of dominant stinking one.

the so called piracy did its own job in challenging the global (ip)
market.

the 'noncommercial' licence challenges my ass. it allows authors to keep
dreaming about the pop star status + to surf on the wave of cc/floss
coolness and hype. everybody knows at this point very obvious thing it
is *hard* to make money in the way how market is set up today. but with
using 'noncommercial' cc license i (the loser) can still dream about
me being pop star one day. so if the Success will happen (even there
is a just a small tiny chance to happen) i would be proud part of the
stinking business models which today deal with the creative works. bfd. +
at the same time i also think that choosing 'noncommercial' is against
the Industry. hahahaha

works licensed under cc didn't really challenged the dominant market
paradigm. especially the most of them are licensed under 'noncommercial'
licence. that says how ppl see cc at the moment and what they expect.
regarding distribution of the licences + my own experience they see or
expect cc to be the protection bridge from the free/good/hyped world of
freedom (but also 'nonreal(istic)') to the 'real' world of money and fame.

cc is a brand for a lowest common denominator of the desire for 'the
better world in the future' in the field of ip. but i'm not sure how much
ppl wearing that brand are aware what are the essential things to change
to see world changing in the direction about everybody agree. i don't know
either what are  *the all essential things* but i'm quite sure
'noncommercial' is not the way to go.

in the next period we will try to define what 'noncommercial' use will
be. the cisac should see that as strong enough protection for authors (and
more likely to see if they will still keep their monopolistic position
in the same field). so let's try to challenge business so that in its
best it won't just push coca cola to found the nonprofit foundation to
be able to use 'noncommercial' works.

one way to challenge business is to start to advocate that 'noncommercial'
licence stinks and keep the world in shape against freedom. share-a-like
rules.

the concept of authors and the concept of their works are way too
overrated. (+ way too overused to exploit workers in always the new and
creative ways). hack the law!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGd7uDTVy5OxRxdQcRAi3ZAJ9yp2LJz1ogK1ieqS0Uyl4kLj14GQCgmmdJ
oD+ck+NDPrRBKiX/lxY2aNU=
=l86x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Icommons mailing list