Discussione delle licenze Creative Commons

[Niels Vestergaard Jensen <nvj AT fys.ku.dk>]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Andrea Glorioso wrote:

> >>>>> "nvj" == Niels Vestergaard Jensen <nvj AT fys.ku.dk> writes:

>     nvj> I meant to point out the general risk that we'd be used for
>     nvj> poster boys - that's in my opinion a very real risk. ("After
>     nvj> consultation with consumer groups, experts and industry
>     nvj> representatives the Digital Media Project today concluded
>     nvj> that....")
>
> Well, I think it's a matter of stressing that we are NOT a part of the
> DMP.
>
> Your scenario is  quite possible, but  I'm not particularly interested
> in it.  I mean, every day I see political decisions being taken with a
> foggy    reference to  not-well-specified    "experts",  "analysts" or
> whatever.   We can't avoid  the DMP or  any other group  refer to some
> unspecified "consumer group".
>
> What we can do is to very  vocally let the DMP know  what we think are
> "fair use" and  "traditional" rights, which   quite probably are  much
> more  rights  than the DRM systems  seeked  by the content industry is
> able  or planned  to accomodate  for.  This way,  we will  sensibilize
> people on the perils of  DRM systems as the industry  wants them to be
> (by letting them  know how many of  their "fair  use" or "traditional"
> rights  could be lost, some  of which I think  "common people" are not
> even fully   aware  of) and, when/if  the   DMP or  any other  similar
> consortium will say «after  consultation with consumer groups, experts
> and industry  representatives» we will be able  to speak up: «wait, we
> didn't say  *that*, we said *this*  and *this* is quite different from
> *that*».

Ok, no need to say much more - I think we agree. Specifically I think we
should stress the right of consumers to access "content" with whatever
software or hardware they like. It's much better for freedom and
competition that way. Before the digital computer it wasn't really
necessary to formulate this right explicitly, but IMHO it would be an
important achievement. We could market it as a "fair use right for the
next millenium" ;-)

best regards,

        Niels