Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-eyebeam - Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons

cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19

List archive

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page