Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 10:01 am, Greg London wrote:
> Branko Collin said:
> > "Creative Commons in the News"
> > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/15/2145245
>
> Wow. I read some of the replies further down and it
> is clear to me that people just don't get copyright.
> Even basic, all rights reserved, copyright, 

I think this is by design. Keep people confused and scared as to what they 
are 
allowed to do and you can run things.

Also, by keeping things confusing, people will not think to question all of 
the inconsistencies in regards to what is and is not copyrighted, etc.

Further, keeping things confusing and complex raises the bar of entry so that 
only the monied players can really play the game.

For instance, if you are writing a novel, can you have one of your characters 
quote "To be or not to be..." ( assume yes) and can they quote a famous 
saying of similar length from a modern work still under copyrigh?. If yes, 
would quoting a different type of work make it no?

In music, how do you get compulsary licenses, mechanical licenses? How does 
Phish allow for free concert downloads of their cover of the White Album?

Some group like Creative Commons or the EFF, etc. could do a world of good by 
creating a copyright primer and cereating and maintaining a copyright faq.

> let alone 
> spectrum of rights copyright.
>
> palmpilot->todolist->"educate planet about copyright"
>
>
all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22