Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - Re: [CC-Europe] EDRI

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Diane Cabell <dc AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Alek Tarkowski <alek AT creativecommons.pl>
  • Cc: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [CC-Europe] EDRI
  • Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:42:20 +0100

Although CC was established in response to inappropriate law, it was not established as an advocacy organization.  CC was always intended to build tools  and other services that enable sharing --  to provide products, not policy papers.  

Providing information to regulatory bodies has always been part of that mission because it is an extension of our obligation to inform the public about our products.  In the US, that is a different kind of action than one that urges a regulatory body to make a particular ruling/law.  The first is simply informing; the second is what we term as advocacy (aka lobbying).  US charities are restricted in the amount of lobbying activity that they may undertake.   Because charitable activities are exempt from income tax,  the government frowns on using that benefit for political purposes instead of using it for the exempt charitable purposes.

The CC Board's traditional position has been that when a policy might interfere with the function of CC's licenses and tools -- or prevent them from being used -- then an advocacy effort may be appropriate.  CC has submitted amici briefs on pending court cases but has only lately engaged in broader policy initiatives.  Again, many of these are informational in nature (explaining how CC would work under a particular change in policy).   This position is re-examined periodically.

Diane Cabell
Corporate Counsel
Creative Commons



On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Alek Tarkowski wrote:

Dear Gisle, and everyone else,

I'm very happy we're having this discussion. I need more time to think about what you wrote; I understand well the "neutral" stance of CC and am generally in favour of a balanced rather than radical approach to any reform, including copyright reform. But in reply to what you write below, I always understood that CC was, from the very start, a movement for copyright reform through voluntary tools based within the current law, in face of the inability of the founders of CC to cause a copyright reform.

I haven't seen a good "ideological" discussion on the goals of CC in a while, and it seems it is needed. Because for every artist you mention, where CC gains (possibly) credibility through a neutral stance (though to be honest, why "a room full of artists" would have a problem with CC's involvement against ACTA?), there's an org or person involved in the digital rights movement, which defines copyright as a key area for reform, and towards whom CC will have credibility only if it has a position on these issues.

Finally, CC headquarters were involved in anti-PIPA/SOPA activities in the US, which again suggests, that it would be good to have a clear policy on this, instead of what seem to be particular decisions.

Best,

Alek

On 27/03/12 14:46 , Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
4F71B6C1.8040606 AT ifi.uio.no" type="cite">
Creative Commons' mission is making CC licenses available to the
public, educating the public about the use of these licenses, and
making sure the quality of those licenses hold up in court under
*current* copyright law.


-- 
dr Alek Tarkowski
koordynator / public lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland
www: http://creativecommons.pl
identica: http://identi.ca/alek
twitter: http://twitter.com/atarkowski
_______________________________________________
CC-Europe mailing list
CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page