Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] NC considered harmful? Prove it...

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] NC considered harmful? Prove it...
  • Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:08:35 +0000

Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>:
On Thursday 08 March 2007 05:09 am, Antoine wrote:
Note :
The irony is where the word "commons" comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
The Wikipedia article does not mention any "non-commercial" limitation to
the "number of traditional rights" which could be exercised by the
commoners.

I would be interesting to see someone put together a history of "commons"
around the world in light of the modern libre and commons "movements"...

When the commons in England were enclosed and commoners more often than not
ended up in towns, allotments were created as a sop. Allotments are implicitly
personal and noncommercial. NC isn't a creative commons, it's an artistic
allotment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotment_%28gardening%29

The idea that NC allows you more use than you would otherwise have while
protecting the original author's economic interests is one of the more bizarre
counterfactuals of online hipsterism. Fair Use allows commercial use in many
more situations than NC does, apart from the one situation that makes NC
pointless for most media as an economic protection: the right to share the work
without restriction on a commercial p2p system.

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page