Cc-europe mailing list

[Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>]

I've just now noticed this blog post by Mike Linksvayer, with
John Hendrik Weitzmann as support:
   http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/25560

I know I won't win any friends (or even influence people) by
saying this here. However, I feel obliged to protest *again*
against Creative Commons being used to further the interests
of Google Inc. shareholders.

The contested German law (Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger)
does *not* interfere with the function of CC's licenses and tools,
or prevent them from being used. So the CC becoming an IGEL supporter,
is again a blatant violation of CC policy.

We live in times where is becoming more and more obvious that
technology is separating content and value creation.  Value are
still being created from content, but remittance flows less and
less towards the creator.  Instead, it flows towards aggregators
that don't create any content, but takes content that others
have created and finds ways of monetizing it.

As a creator, I find this development deeply problematic.  If we
are going to have independent, quality journalism created by paid
journalists twenty years from now, instead of just tweets and blogs
by unpaid amateurs and paid spin-doctors, we need to find some way
of making some of the value created by content again flow in the
direction of those that create it.  This means that CC should
not interfere in this area, but allow the relevant stake-holders
to experiment with business models and means of regulation that
further this goal.

As I understand *Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger*, it
proposes that aggregators (i.e. Google) who makes tons of money
on content created by others shall be required to pay some of that
money back to the publishers that pays the journalists that
creates the content.  While I am not convinced that this type
of statutory license schemes are going to save the Press, I
also think that this is *not* Creative Commons' fight.  It
is obviou that such licensing schemes is not in the interest
og Google - but why do CC *have* to enlist in Google's army
in these tussles?

I think CC now needs to think seriously about its independence.
I find it deeply disturbing that CC repeatedly makes advocacy
efforts on behalf of Google, and at the same time receives
huge donations from both Google Inc. itself and from key Google
officers.  Is these advocacy efforts on behalf of Google compatible
with CC's status as a charity?

I also wonder why Esther Wojcicki, mother-in-law of Google
co-founder and director Sergey Brin, is on the CC board?
And why her relationship to Brin/Google is not disclosed, re
http://creativecommons.org/board ?
-- 
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
    "Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan