Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David" <aristegui AT nodo50.org>
  • To: "Development of Creative Commons licenses" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses
  • Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:14:17 +0100

"Definitely agreed here. I think what is broken is that copyright
mistakenly attempts to treat ideas as property".

Ideas or the expression of these ideas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_divide

Best regards,
David.

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page