[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Intellectual Highway Department

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue May 30 08:55:51 EDT 2006


On Tuesday 30 May 2006 08:41 am, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Moved to community.
>
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com>:
> > On Monday 29 May 2006 11:52 pm, Greg London wrote:
> >> CC-NC doesn't "break up the commons".
> >
> > Perhaps, perhaps not,
>
> It does, you know. Look at all that NC content on Flickr that could be used
> to illustrate Wikipedia articles. That certainly looks like fragmentation
> to me.
>
> > what the different CC licenses do is create seperate
> > "commons" areas where works in each area are not necessarily free to move
> > from area to area and that have the unfortunate, to my mind, attribute
> > that most mixing from the area results in taking out of the more free
> > areas and moving to hte less free.
>
> You cannot move SA to NC, so if you mean moving BY to SA, this is not a
> reduction in freedom since it will protect freedom, so in fact it is an
> increase in freedom. :-)

I don't argue with that, but I was thinking of something more like CC's own 
CCMixter. They allow licenses that allow for all works to be remixed, but 
that pushes works to a more closed license if you take advantage of the 
license mixing abilities.

I have no problem with BY to BY-SA and presumably those putting their works 
under BY don't either or they wouldn't have chosen BY in the first place.
>
> > That is, not all people have commonage rights. Npt even all citizens. I
> > could have misunderstood some things I have read though so those with
> > more definate knowledge are encouraged to contribute.
>
> Commons are managed community resources. This is why the traditional
> "tragedy of
> the commons" pleading for proprietary management is bogus:
>
> http://www.californiaconnected.org/wp/archives/263
>
> >> If that person decides to use the CC-NC license,
> >> they have decided to allow more free access to
> >> their land without charging for it than they
> >> could have, given their rights as landowner.
> >> They lowered the fence for some people and let
> >> them graze for free.
> >>
> >> doing THAT does not break the commons up, either.
>
> It does since they are denying an area of the commons to a particular use.
> The commons is not an allotment, you can sell your sheep. NC breaks this.
>
> >> The commons is not fragmented.
>
> It is terribly fragmented.
>
> > Obvioulsy, you look at things differently. I doubt that you are going to
> > convince me though. I can use PD, BY, and BY-SA for what I want to do.
> > (And anything compatible where I can end up with a copyleft work.) The
> > rest may as well be all rights reserved as far as I am concerned.
> > Fragmented. And there is a fragment that is of no use to me. YMMV.
>
> And if we take the idea of a commons that can be used for any end as
> long as it
> does not harm the comons, NC and ND are simply not commons licenses.
>
> >> CC-NC can be used by creators as a way to give
> >> up some rights in exchange for getting more sales,
> >> and more sales allow them to keep creating new works,
> >> and eventually those works go into the Public Domain.
> >
> > Are you sure about that?
>
> Disney would certainly beg to differ.

Hence the pushing of the "intellectual property" meme.
>
> >> This process doesn't "fragment" the "commons",
> >> it expands it.
> >
> > Not if the current never expiring copyright game keeps being played.
>
> And if we end up with more and more incompatible works.

Bingo, and no wat to sunset them into a more compatible framework after a 
certain condition is met.
>
> >> You keep using the word "commons",
> >> but I don't think it means what you think it means.
> >
> > To use your definition, Creative Commons is wrongly named. Only the
> > Public Domain is the commons and there is very little of that being
> > produced around here if statements I see are correct.
>
> The public domain is not the commons, see the flash animation above, and
> Wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
>
> "The fact that land is common land does not mean it has no owner—all land
> in England and Wales is owned by someone."
>
> Commons are not wildernesses waiting to be (over-)exploited.
>
> But I agree this may be a matter of terminology.

So, how does a "real" commons work in various countries.

We have something in my country referred to as generation land which I think 
has at least some commonage features, but I am not sure. I don't think I have 
rights to any generation land and have never boned up on the details.
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145




More information about the cc-community mailing list