Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Sigmascape1 AT cs.com]

A website that takes the CC ideas and compares them to today's copyright 
reality... life plus 70 years vs. a more moderate approach. My opinion of 
copyright and Lessig's opinion of copyright vary little. Take what Lessig 
says, and add to it info on public domain, and down-the-middle news of 
current copyright law, and you have a 'balanced' look at the situation. Just 
an idea.

I agree that CC's primary focus should be the commons, but addressing issues 
that caused the development of CC is important as well. 

Mitch


>
>>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:46:31 +0100
>From: "Branko Collin" <collin AT xs4all.nl>
>Subject: Re: "Creative Commons in the News"
>To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <423AF7D7.28162.B9CF4A@localhost>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>On 18 Mar 2005, at 8:18, Sigmascape1 AT cs.com wrote:
>
>> I'd love to see some kind of website that could explain, in basic
>> terms, what the copyright law is all about. Yes, I realize that
>> various websites already exist that may satisfy this request, but I
>> think the site also needs to address why culture is impacted by
>> extreme durations of copyright protection. Also, without question, the
>> public domain (the commons) needs to be addressed and explained on a
>> level that anyone can understand.
>
>In other words, you want your copyright explanation from a certain
>point of view. I think that is the only way it would work, but: I
>think that Creative Commons needs to explain copyright from its point
>of view.
>
>Although the extreme duration of copyright is related to Creative
>Commons (it's his perceived shrinking of the public domain that made
>Larry Lessig start CC, IIRC), I am not sure that is the aspect of
>copyright that should be highlighted for the benefit of someone
>wishing to choose a license.
>
>As it is, a lot of people understand little to nothing about
>copyright law.
>
>When some ten years ago the internet started to get popular, the
>prevailing notion seemed to be that everything on the internet was
>that everything there was for the taking: once something landed on
>the internet, it was considered free.
>
>These were the days when Brad Templeton wrote his "10 Big Myths about
>copyright explained"
>(<http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html>). At the time, the
>document seemed to make a lot of sense. The if-it's-on-the-net-it's-
>free brigade affected everybody. If you had made a cool site,
>somebody was sure to come along, copy it wholesale and claim it as
>his. Much easier to take that person to task over copyright than over
>ethics.
>
>Nowadays, when actual people are actually getting harased by lawyers,
>Brad's document suddenly seems to be decidedly on the side of strong
>copyright. There is no equivalent document about Fair Use, the Public
>Domain, and making your downloaders feel less like criminals.
>
>Although that document also needs to be written, I feel CC should
>focus on the commons.
>
>
>--
>branko collin
>collin AT xs4all.nl
>
>