holtzermann17 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 17:18:09 EST 2011
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:08 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 December 2011 12:50:04 Joe Corneli wrote:
>> > The problem is not so much in using them, rather in being put under the
>> > same banner as whose who do. At least for some. There are also more
>> > practical problems too such as vast amounts of wasted time and effort.
>> LOL. I think it would help if things were less "banner-ish" and more
>> descriptive. If the "movement" was less of a movement ether more of
>> an "agora" or more of a concerted effort, or both.
> The "banner" language is just a way of speaking. Use brand instead if you
> like, Use some other word if you wish. The mixing of the Free and non-Free
> licenses under the same cc brand/banner causes real world problems though.
Agreed! My point wasn't to dismiss your point about the banner, but
to wish that we had more than a banner.
Like Mike said in his latest post: "Public copyright licenses are
currently one effective mechanism of cultivating the commons." But
what are the other effective ways? And what are the non-effective and
Are NC/ND works contributing to a rich commons? It's not entirely
clear that they are. For example, there are things like Kahn Academy,
but Salman Kahn could have released everything on YouTube without the
CC-By-NC-SA license, and would it have made a difference? It seems to
me that the CC-By-NC-SA license is a bit of an afterthought. The
technology (free videos) was the main idea. Does the license matter
at all in this case?
Similarly I think we should take The Pirate Bay et al. seriously (even
if RMS doesn't) and ask questions about extra-legal means of
contributing to the commons. Had Aaron Swartz pulled off what he was
(allegedly) attempting to do with keepgrabbing.py, he might (arguably)
have been doing quite a bit for the commons . Maybe in recognition
of this, Creative Commons should consider adding the Kopimi as a
"license" option as an experiment for the next decade, just to see
what happens. I realize that this would dilute the CC brand, and
would at the same time contribute to mixing free and non-free content
under the same (diluted) brand, but if it contributes to a rich
commons, maybe that's enough. CC-K?
In general, I think that there should be a dialog about this "commons"
of ours and that everyone from TPB to MIT should be invited and should
ideally come to some agreement. That would be worth much more than a
brand or banner.
: «On a final note, I realize that some people may speculate that
making the Early Journal Content free to the public today is a direct
response to widely-publicized events over the summer involving an
individual who was indicted for downloading a substantial portion of
content from JSTOR, allegedly for the purpose of posting it to file
sharing sites. While we had been working on releasing the
pre-1923/pre-1870 content before the incident took place, it would be
inaccurate to say that these events have had no impact on our
planning.» -- http://about.jstor.org/news-events/news/jstor%E2%80%93free-access-early-journal-content
More information about the cc-community