cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19
List archive
- From: whatever AT whatever.info
- To: cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org>
wrote:
> This is my first post to the list, so I want to
echo Neeru's thanks to
> Eyebeam and the StillWater program at U. of
Maine for having Creative
> Commons involved.
>
> (Nice press, by the way, on Eyebeam in the New
York Times recently:
> <A Href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/arts/design/"
target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/arts/design/</A>
09BARD.html).
>
> Here are a couple of responses to some of the
specific points raised so
> far (we're just getting into it, and already
it's interesting.)
>
> (1) Rejiquar wrote:
>
> -----
>
> I do have a problem with the non-commercial
types reserving the right
> to sell my incorporated work while forcing any
of their derivers
> downstream only to offer it for free, as this
strikes me as undermining
> the goal of the SA clause. . . .
> So far as I can tell (big assumption, there, I
realize) there is no
> easy way to choose a license that allows me to
allow either commercial
> or non-commercial use downstream. GPL gets
around this, so far as I
> can tell, by not allowing restrictions on
commerce.
>
> ----
>
> If you chose a share alike license that did not
prohibit commercial
> use, then anyone could make any use of derived
works provided they
> relicensed them under the same terms. The BY-SA
and plain-old SA
> licenses are philosophically and practically
the same as the GPL.
>
> That said, we're about to offer a license that
gives the licensor more
> flexibility in choosing what sorts of uses can
be done commercially,
> and which not. Right now the noncommercial
provision acts in a blanket
> fashion: if you prohibit commercial uses of
derived works, you also
> prohibit commercial uses of verbatim copies
(or, vice versa).
>
> This winter we're offering two new licenses,
the Sampling Licenses,
> that let an author invite people to
commercialize tranformative
> derivatives but not to make commercial use of
verbatim copies. The idea
> is to reward transformation, re-creativity. We
got the idea from
> Negativland, Vicki Bennett (Peoplelikeus.org),
and Brazilian minister
> of culture and legendary musician Gilberto Gil.
You can read more about
> the sampling licenses here:
> <<A Href="http://creativecommons.org/projects/sampling>."
target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/projects/sampling>.</A>
>
> Does this address your question?
>
> (2)
>
> Joline Blaise wrote:
>
> ---
>
> In a media landscape increasingly dominated
> by corporate monopolies,
> some netizens have abandoned hope that the
> legal system will support
> the commons of ideas and culture that gave
> rise to the early Internet.
>
> Instead they propose a distributed approach
> to legal innovation: open
> licenses, tools for community activism, and
> consciousness-raising exhibitions.
>
> Will these innovations suffice to ensure a
> creative commons for current and emerging
> culture?
>
> ---
>
> Like Neeru said, this is definitely our
ambition, but I think we're
> realistic that our effort alone -- and just as
important, our *kind* of
> effort alone -- won't be enough to protect the
commons. It's one tool
> among many others: there are great groups like
the EFF and
> Publicknowledge.org taking the good fight into
the courtrooms and halls
> of policy out there; there are journalists' and
consumer-rights groups
> fighting for independence in media; and, just
as important, there are
> savvy and gutsy entrepreneurs fighting to
establish new, viable
> business models that will allocate our cultural
resources more
> efficiently while breaking up the stagnant old
order at the same time.
>
> The Creative Commons approach, like the free
software and open-source
> approaches, is different: It's not about
changing the law (directly
> anyway). It's about changing attitudes about
copyright, about educating
> people how it works, about injecting a much-
needed dose of sobriety and
> balance into the debate.
>
> And more important, it's about meeting various
kinds of unmet demand
> out there: (a) to offer a very easy way for
people who aren't obsessed
> with "all rights reserved" to say so, (b) to
cut out unnecessary
> middlemen and legal doubt, and ultimately, (c)
to build a huge body of
> culture that is free to drawn upon. People
crave this kind of stuff,
> and we hope we've begun to provide it. That's
our role in this whole
> topsy-turvy world of media change; it's a
necessary effort, but by no
> means sufficient, standing alone, to cure all
our ills in this area.
>
> Thanks again for having us participate in the
forum. Looking forward to
> more comments . . .
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-eyebeam mailing list
> cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org
> <A Href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-"
target="_blank">http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-</A>
eyebeam
>
> This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19.
Submissions are licensed
> under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike
> license <<A Href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/"
target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/</A>
by-nc-sa/1.0/>.
> --===============27607845934397401==--
-
[cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons,
Glenn Otis Brown, 11/12/2003
-
Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons,
donatomancini, 11/13/2003
-
Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons,
Joseph Pietro Riolo, 11/14/2003
-
Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons,
cz, 11/14/2003
- Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons, Joseph Pietro Riolo, 11/15/2003
-
Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons,
cz, 11/14/2003
-
Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons,
Joseph Pietro Riolo, 11/14/2003
- Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons, whatever, 11/17/2003
- Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons, jippolito, 11/18/2003
-
Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons,
donatomancini, 11/13/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.