Cc-europe mailing list

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

On 20.04.2012 22:25, John Hendrik Weitzmann wrote:
> Hi Gisle,
> 
>> 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.
> 
> to start (not related to the potential impact of the 
> Presse-Leistungsschutzrecht):
> 
> Just because free speech also favours Google, that won't turn me into an 
> enemy of free speech. You?
> 
>> 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.

> You are wrong, it falls outside of sec. 1.e of the licenses and thus 
> adds another layer of rights (and complexity) in an area most prominent 
> for CCPL adoption, that is: news texts.

I fail to see the relevance. It is not even clear what section of the
CC public license you refer to.

Section 1.e of CC BY, BY-ND, BY-NC and BY-NC-ND 3.0 says:

  "Original Author" means, in the case of a literary or artistic work,
   the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created the Work
   or if no individual or entity can be identified, the publisher; and
   in addition (i) in the case of a performance the actors, singers,
   musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver,
   declaim, play in, interpret or otherwise perform literary or
   artistic works or expressions of folklore; (ii) in the case of a
   phonogram the producer being the person or legal entity who first
   fixes the sounds of a performance or other sounds; and, (iii) in the
   case of broadcasts, the organization that transmits the broadcast.

Section 1.e of CC BY-SA 3.0 says:

   "License Elements" means the following high-level license attributes
    as selected by Licensor and indicated in the title of this License:
    Attribution, ShareAlike.

Section 1.e of CC BY-SA-NC 3.0 says:

   "Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities
    that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License.

Assuming you mean 1.e of CC BY, BY-ND, BY-NC and BY-NC-ND 3.0:

If you are the Original Author and haven't already *exclusively*
licensed your Work to a publisher, what is it in Leistungsschutzrecht
für Presseverleger that stops you from offering your news text (or
any other text) under the CC public license of your choice?

I may be slow, but can you please explain how this particular
legislation is interfering with the CC public license?

>> 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.

> well, I'd like to see any consistent definition of the "it" you are 
> talking about. Of course there is something flowing to the aggregators, 
> but to state that this is the same value that would rightfully otherwise 
> flow to creators (which ones exactly?) is bogus. And it isn't the least 
> anything "obvious".

Maybe not.  However, we live in what I regard as difficult times for
content creators and publishers, and I think we need to allow for
some experimentation with value networks, including value networks
incorporating statutory licenses as well as voluntary public licenses.

I do not see it as the task of Creative Commons to take sides for or
against such  experiments, even if they are ill-advised and destined
for failure (as long as they do not interfere with CC licenses).

> Oh, but sorry, I forgot that anyone not following the "obvious" thoughts 
> you have is probably a paid spin-doctor of Google and/or of all of 
> Silicon Valley. Maybe I should check my bank account again, might find 
> some dirty aggregator money there ...

Nice use of sarcasm, but I am not going to respond to that straw-man.

>> 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.

> true, but (at least in Germany) it is the press publishers themselves 
> who are diverting the value away from those who actually create, that 
> is: journalists. Instead they squeeze out of their editorial staffs a 
> ROI of between 10 and 15%. And now they want a new related right 
> established which they can enforce without needing consent by (and 
> giving a share to) their journalists, at the expense of everyone else 
> which - of course - would be focussed on Google, because that's where 
> the (read: "their") mystic money is.
> 
> This part of the story does not have anything to do with CC,

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