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: Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>
  • To: Timothy Vollmer <tvol AT creativecommons.org>
  • Cc: cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org, regional AT creativecommons.org, Catherine Casserly <cathy AT creativecommons.org>
  • Subject: Re: [CC-Europe] EDRI
  • Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:58:57 +0200

On 11.04.2012 14:11, Timothy Vollmer wrote:
> Hello Gisle and CC Europe:
>
> CC's reasons for taking a position on SOPA/PIPA are set out in Mike's
> original
> blogpost here: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30375. More
> specific discussion of the legislation itself and how it negatively affects
> the the open community can also be found here:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wikipedia/
> , and here:
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/hollywood-new-war-on-software-freedom-and-internet-innovation
> .
>
> We think Mike's post communicates the relevance to CC well.

I disagree.

Mike L. only repeats the same spin on SOPA that was previously posted
to the various anti-SOPA advocacy websites that he links to.

Nowhere in that blog post does Mike L. really discuss the relevance of
SOPA to CC. And he certainly does not mention how SOPA "directly affect
platforms leveraging CC licensing".

All he does, is to assert that SOPA will "harm the commons" - with no
other grounds for saying so than a link to a piece of fiction that was
posted on the web by the EFF.

> In making policy
> decisions, we try to keep in mind both the mission of CC of stewarding our
> licences, as well as our vision: "realizing the full potential of the
> Internet." It could be argued that world where SOPA/PIPA exists is not a
> move in the right direction with regard to the vision CC ascribes to.

I do not think that "realizing the full potential of the Internet"
is a very clear or well-defined defined concept.

> As we mentioned before, we sincerely appreciate this frank discussion and
> are glad to see that there is a strong interest in CC's advocacy decisions
> among the affiliate community. We're looking at ways we can draw on more on
> affiliates to help with such decisions in future, so that we can better tap
> the expertise of our community.

I thought the initial posting by Diana Cabell, i.e.:

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.

was very succinct in defining the scope for advocacy efforts. And
it is blatantly obvious that the blog post made by Mike Linksvayer,
on November 11th, 2011, which you refer to and link to, is a breech
of *that* CC board position.

Now you go on to say that making policy decisions, CC need to keep in
mind its vision: "realizing the full potential of the Internet".
This obviously broadens the scope compared to the narrow scope of
proposed by Diana Cabell. If this "vision" is what defines the scope,
it sounds to me as if CC can go on and make advocacy efforts about
almost anything Internet-related.

============
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>> On 04.04.2012 20:14, Timothy Vollmer wrote:
>>> CC did take action on SOPA/PIPA and was formally opposed to that proposed
>>> legislation. The regulation would have been sweeping and would have
>>> directly affected platforms leveraging CC licensing at their core, such
>> as
>>> Wikipedia and OER repositories such as Connexions.
>>
>> I am very surprised to learn that.
>>
>> I've read carefully through SOPA and PIPA, and I cannot understand
>> why anyone who has bothered to read the text would think that SOPA
>> or PIPA would in any way "directly affect platforms leveraging CC
>> licensing".
>>
>> Could you please explain how the CC arrived at this conclusion?
>>
>> Sure, I've seen a lot of people in the social media making the *same*
>> assertion. But repeating a lie often enough does *not* make it true
>> (but it often works out like that).
>>
>> As an example, I've seen literally hundreds of commentators tweeting
>> that SOPA would enable law enforcement to take down *an entire domain*
>> due to something posted *on a single blog* hosted on that domain.
>> However, I am not aware of anything in the text if the SOPA proposal
>> *itself* that supports that assertion.
>>
>> From my perspective, the SOPA/PIPA incident was a tussle between
>> Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley employed the best
>> spin-doctors, so they won - but that is about all there was to it
>>
>> I am very disappointed to learn about CC taking a position in this
>> particular tussle - in effect lending its credibility and name
>> to the cause of the silicon valley companies that monetizes vast sums
>> of profit from on-line content without paying a penny to the creators
>> of that content.
>> --
>> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
>> ========================================================================
>> "Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan
>>
>
>
>


--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
"Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page