osm at inbox.org
Wed Dec 14 19:08:04 EST 2011
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The historical fluke that Aaron Swartz happened to download files
>>> without permission is un-interesting to me. What is more interesting
>>> is what would have happened if he had re-uploaded them without
>> The files are public domain, aren't they? If they're public domain,
>> and he had permission to download them, he doesn't need permission to
>> "re-upload" them.
> He downloaded more than 4 million documents.
> The public domain trove released by JSTOR includes about half a
> million public domain documents. So I'm guessing most of his 4
> million documents were not public domain.
That part's not very interesting, though. What happens to people who
engage in copyright infringement on a massive scale, if they get
caught, is pretty well known.
But when you referred to "contributing to the commons", you meant the
public domain documents, right?
Otherwise, I don't see how you can say that CC-NC content doesn't
contribute to the commons, but pirated proprietary content does.
I mean, are you seriously suggesting that CC encourage mass piracy as
a way to "contribute to the commons"?
I must be missing the sarcasm somewhere.
More information about the cc-community