Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Van Helsing and the Public Domain

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Van Helsing and the Public Domain
  • Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:26:02 +0100

On Wednesday, May 12, 2004, at 01:42PM, Brian Clark <bclark AT radzone.org>
wrote:

>But your arguments -- that copyright isn't a natural right vested as the
>moment of creation to the author -- is what makes "copylefters" look like "a
>bunch of wacked-out, fringe-element," because your argument assumes that "IP
>holders" (ie, the creators of media and invention) are the enemy of the gift
>economy.

Copyright is not a natural right. There's the philosophical problem of
secularly deciding what a natural right is, but that's not what I mean. I
mean that, having read Lessig's "Free Culture", it's obvious that Copyright
is not a natural right, it is a historical legal manouver resulting from the
invention of the printing press. Copyright effectively meant the right to
allow a particular printing press to produce an authors work. That is not a
natural right as we are not born with or without printing presses regardless
of our gender, race or orientation.

>Sorry for taking the discussion further off of the CC license trail: but I
>agree with Greg that "we are what we speak" and I think one of the dangers
>of what we speak is making the assumption that "intellectual property right
>owner" or "copyright holder" is synonymous with "corporate control". The
>MAJORITY of IP holders are actually individuals who should be recruited, not
>rebuked.

The fact that the benefactors of the currently ridiculously extended
copyright regime have managed to set the parameters of the debate so strongly
around the idea that copyright is a natural right is disturbing. It's the
"divine right" of the media age.

I'm afraid that the majority of IP holders being individuals has nothing to
do with it. If a big film company accused you of IP infringement, or if they
stole your work and you accused them, attempting to fight for your "natural
rights" would bankrupt you. The reality of IP is not that every producer gets
to control their "property", the reality is that you'd better pray you never
have to try to exercise your rights against anyone who can afford to hire a
lawyer.

GPL/CC-BY-SA-style licenses work by ironising copyright law. This can be sold
to the would-be mogul as easily as to the would-be revolutionary. How would
one recruit people without explaining the advantages and responsibilities of
what one is encouraging them to do?

- Rob.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page