Cc-europe mailing list

[melanie dulong <melanie.ddr AT gmail.com>]

Hi Gisle,

2012/4/20 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.

So what do you want?

I am grateful to John, Teresa and others who are taking the time to
reply to your statements.
I feel overwhelmed and disheartened to participate to the discussions
by reading your emails, sorry.

Regards,
Melanie


>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CC-Europe mailing list
> CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe