cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- From: Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam AT benfinney.id.au>
- To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:17:47 +1100
Mitar <mmitar AT gmail.com> writes:
> I think we are all agree that CC licenses are a hack, a patch to the
> broken copyright system.
Definitely agreed here. I think what is broken is that copyright
mistakenly attempts to treat ideas as property.
> CC licenses provide a range of choices for the users. Users can decide
> to allow this or that, but the main issue of copyright they do not
> address: the length of the copyright before it enters the public
> domain. Isn't this the main issue we have about current copyright? Not
> that copyright exists and what it protects, but that the protection
> time is getting longer and longer.
That is a terrible result of the copyright system, yes. But it's an
outcome of the main complaint: the system attempts to grant
property-like monopolies over ideas.
> And CC licenses do not address this at all. They play with some small
> permissions, sharing, remixing, just toys. But not with the real
> thing: when does work enter public domain.
The granting of rights which are by default restricted under copyright
*does* address the real thing: it grants, immediately, the permissions
rather than waiting for some term of monopoly to expire.
> But the main point is that after those X years, there is no "oh, I
> want a few years more, my work is more successfully than I anticipated
> and I am rich now", you licensed it, it is public domain. Yes!
Why? If the work's recipients deserve the rights, then why not
immediately? I see your formulation as the one tweaking at the edges
instead of addressing the core issue.
> This could also be mixed with other licenses, if you want. CC-BY-SA-5,
> means for 5 years it is CC-BY-SA, but then it goes into public domain,
> into CC-0. So every year, it gets one number less, countdown:
> CC-BY-SA-4, CC-BY-SA-3, CC-BY-SA-2, CC-BY-SA-1, CC-0. Happy new year!
> We have more CC works entering public domain. Isn't this the best
> present ever?
I think you over-estimate the power of CC-0. It can only do what
copyright law allows a copyright holder to do; it is not at all clear
that copyright holders can defy the term of monopoly and simply declare
a work in the public domain before the expiration of that term.
So no, I don't think creating more licenses is the solution, even if
this were a problem worth addressing. To the extent this is a problem,
it is solved only by reducing the term of copyright in law.
--
\ “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you |
`\ have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither |
_o__) on your side, pound the table.” —anonymous |
Ben Finney
-
[cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses,
Mitar, 12/03/2013
- Re: [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses, Diane Peters, 12/05/2013
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses,
Ben Finney, 12/05/2013
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses,
David, 12/16/2013
- Re: [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses, Diane Peters, 12/16/2013
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses,
David, 12/16/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.