Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-sampling - Re: [cc-sampling] Questioning Legality...

cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Don Joyce <dj AT webbnet.com>
  • To: creative commons license list <cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] Questioning Legality...
  • Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:51:19 -0700

Well, I agree that the constraints of legal thinking and legal
"workability" are inevitable drainers of idealism from any subject
they touch, and this idealistic license is no exception. If I was a
lawyer doing this, I would also be making it our business to actually
attempt to reform the traditions of legalese language in this and
everything I did. It really is so much more important than this
little license. That's why I'm not a lawyer - because that is
impossible. Too many have too much at stake in the current
incomprehensibility of this secret science, and it gives a great
excuse for the high fees required to interpret this specific
gibberish for all us dummies who are subjected to it against our
will. Legal language needs to be democratized and, just like
copyright, it wont be.
So carry on is all we can say...


DJ






Thanks that is an extremely useful link (and maybe it would be good
to get it added at the bottom of the CC list signature for all
newbies that join the list?

But I still wonder about this process..

1. The legitimacy of this process is itself problematic as it has
not itself been democratically formed, it is rather the work of a
benevolent dictatorship. How can we challenge this process and
improve its participation... why only public participation at one
stage? Who decided?
2. By getting the process right it helps to improve the license as
it carries more legitimacy.
3. I echo the poster who calls for a website to help clarify and
lock down where we are in the discussion.
4. I personally wonder about the project in that fundamentally I see
this as an ideal. Contributing to the public domain and allowing
reuse, transformation, sampling what-have-you is a conception of a
social good. Locking down the licenses so hard seems legalistic and
maybe loses the idealistic moment (but understandable of course).
5. I have looked through the list and watched how excellent ideas
and ideals are slowly lost to the need to be legally tight.
6. This bias to the American legal system is strange.. but I suppose
a side-effect of the fact that it has been created by an American
lawyer?

To sum up I think I am worried that the good ideals for sharing and
co-operating are getting lost and instead we are writing contracts...

The GNU GPL license is questionably legal (and that is putting it
lightly), hardly internationally binding legally - yet it still
works. Why? Because the people involved believe in it, somewhat
oblivious to the legality...

Maybe that is the important thing..?

Maybe we need to lose the lawyers (useful as they are ;-) and write
a GNU GPL for sampling....

Cheers

David


On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 03:58 am, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:

FYI, this is the model for public participation, announced long ago:

http://creativecommons.org/discuss

I am a "more speech" kind of guy. So I echo Mark's call for patience.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:14:57 -0700, "mark / negativland"
<markhosler AT charter.net> said:
At 12:25 AM +0100 9/17/03, David meme wrote:
Round and round is good. We have time. Discussion is fine.

Like I said, I'm happy to take all these names to the team, and I'll do
so on an ongoing basis.


Yes but if we are all spending time discussing names and then they
are just taken to a team who pick one then it is hardly a legitimate
and participatory method of choosing the name. Why not start to
narrow the field, or somehow allow us to take stock of what we are
talking about, otherwise this is starting to resemble a talking shop
that gives the *impression* of participation but lacks any real
power.


I don't think we can take a vote and decide that way,, though...we
have lawyers involved and CC wants this thing to be legally workable,
so it cant just be what the musicians want...Glenn will have to chime
in here to be more clear.......


It certainly makes me wonder what the point of contributing if there
is no end in sight and newbies start us right at the beginning
again.. There surely needs to be some structure to how we are
forming some kind of consensus or decision..

Indeed, there are multiple levels to this discussion, my
understanding (possibly misplaced) was that we were able to not just
*influence* with its implications of a small group of technocratic
'experts' distilling the ideas into 'sensible' solutions. But more
radically we could direct, write and hey maybe even name the license
so that it reflected the needs and wishes of musicians rather than
lawyers... and who is best to make the decisions if about a license
that is for musicians to use... not the lawyers thats for sure!

And that's not to say I disagree with discussion, its just
unstructured, never ending, non-chaired, round and round discussion
that I have a problem with...


Ummm....as one of the chairs/project managers of this list my
suggestion is that you stop reading the "names" e-mails and stop
driving yourself batty! :) :) We just started this "names"
discussion a few days ago and Negativland member Don Joyce (DJ), who
is one of the other chairs, only just chimed in for the first time a
few hours ago. So please be patient.

And in case not everyone new to this list knows, though he isn't a
project manager here, Chris Grigg was also an equal part of the
Negativland team back when we were sued for the "U2" single....his
contributions back then were crucial, brilliant and invaluable and
his contributions here have also been insightful and invaluable. I
will now refer to him as "Mr. Arty Smarty Pants". He does a mean
butt dance too.

David- I think a lot of what you are looking for on this list was
actually discussed and mostly sorted out a few months ago....not sure
if you were on the list then.

Dont forget- trying to satisfy a lowest common denominator usually
pleases no one. For me,trying to reduce Negativland's IP ideas to a
workable license has been an interesting challenge, but ultimately
the real world of US contract law will never quite live up to our
collage-art ideals.... I am reminded of why I'll never be a
politician or an IP lobbyist! Yikes. But we're doing the best we
can here....



mark



David meme


--------THE OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL--------

L O C A R E C O R D S
Stick to What You Don't Know?

http://www.locarecords.com

_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling


--
_______________________________________________________
*******************************************************

HEY!! LOOKEE!! Please note my new e-mail address that I am writing to
you from -

mark / negativland <markhosler AT charter.net>


My old address at attbi.com is no longer being used.
---------------------
Glenn Otis Brown
Executive Director
Creative Commons
glenn AT creativecommons.org
+1.650.723.7572 (telephone)
+1.415.336.1433 (mobile)




--------THE OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL--------

L O C A R E C O R D S
Stick to What You Don't Know

http://www.locarecords.com

_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page