ml at creativecommons.org
Mon Dec 19 17:14:22 EST 2011
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I'd hope a "movement" such as there is or will develop has both
pluralism and coordinated efforts. Without both (IMO) one has either a
sort of faux-movement directed by some singular person or organization
(as I've joked elsewhere, I'm really looking forward to the day when
"movement" has been as co-opted as "community", leading to titles such
as "movement manager" ... or not ... and of course many "community
managers" do awesome work, and many of my peeves are useless) or an
Some notes related to CC as a movement or CC and movements may be
found at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Global_Summit_2011/CC%27s_role_in_the_global_commons_movement
>> 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
> detrimental non-ways?
You might find the 4th question&answer in the interview at
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/23204 interesting. The other
broad classes -- change bad laws, and ignore bad laws -- aren't
directly pertinent to CC -- we have to work with the law as it is and
might be, and want to encourage respect for the law -- but they aren't
entirely not-pertinent. For example, to the extent CC succeeds, it at
the least provides evidence for changes, and as a "standard" actually
is providing something that can be adopted into law for particular
cases, eg requirements for outputs of public funding. Another example
-- how can we get "pirates" more excited about promoting legally open
works? Some are just interested in sharing "pirated" works, at the
same time marketing the same (consider how self-evidently lame sharing
proprietary software is in the FLOSS world), but the more politically
aware ones (sure, I'm making gross characterizations here) are more
interested in the civil liberties implications of the war on "piracy",
a war which to the extent culture is free there is less of a
constituency for waging.
> 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?
This is a really important question. My suspicion is that there's a
large benefit to society from merely making a work available online;
adding relatively limited permissions (ie with NC or ND conditions) a
fairly small increment; adding permissions corresponding to fully
free/open licenses a fairly large increment. I'm sure this is highly
debatable. Please do. :-)
In the case of Kahn Academy, it started off without offering a
license. BY-SA was briefly offered, then they switched to BY-NC-SA. It
was already getting really popular before offering any license, and my
guess is that most of the uses so far don't require a public license
-- streaming from YouTube, including whatever embedding they've
enabled, would be accomplished via Khan Academy agreeing to YouTube's
terms of service.
It'll be really interesting to see what uses that rely on the BY-NC-SA
license emerge. It is too bad a larger collection of the works
available under BY-SA was not curated elsewhere -- there are just a
few videos at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Khan_Academy
-- would've been a very interesting natural experiment.
> 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?
But Kopimi isn't extra-legal, it just isn't clearly legally operative.
A bad idea IMO, for reasons described (perhaps in an over the top
manner) at http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2010/12/14/censorheart/
> 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.
Agreement, probably not, but people across such a spectrum very much
ought be interested in CC, and weigh in accordingly.
More information about the cc-community