On 2/27/07, Lawrence Lessig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Second, with respect to Janet's criticism of CC's "termination of > transfer" project. I had written Janet about this, but hadn't heard > anything back from her. (Though email seems to be insanely bad these > days).
Greets LL Feel free to hit me with a second copy I think I have replied to everything I've seen. > As I said to her, this is a hugely important project if we're > to liberate a huge amount of scientific material assigned to > publishers and now sitting unused and unusable. For remember: this is > a tool to terminate an author's transfer to someone else, and that > someone else is 99% of the time a publisher. It is plainly correct > that this will raise -- in 35 years -- a question about CC licensed > materials. This includes rescinding rights to materials which have been contributed to collective projects. ie The commons has a use-by date and CC is developing tools to make it easy to terminate transfer. This concerns me as an organisation identifying itself as promoting participation and access to a full and reliable commons. > In my view, CC authors should have the same rights as any > other author. But even if you don't think that, it is useful to note > the very difficult process anyone one making work available in a > public license would have to exercise the ToT provisions (how do you > give notice to everyone using the license?). My hope is that if your > movement is successful, copyright law will be radically reformed in > 35 years. But whether your successful or not, it seems wrong to give > up the cache of culture now locked up by publishers simply because > you fear, in 35 years, some CC author might be able to reclaim his or > her copyright. I can see the intent behind the act but feel concerned that this is precisely the problem with working inside the existing model. Its a bit like trying to use guns for peace. I for one would really be much happier if CC projects focused on reform of copyright which it seems singularly well placed to do. I feel confident that the mobs of DRM lawyers will be quick to find ways to rescind access and promote a new kind of 'tenancy' of access for people participating in information/culture. Termination for the commons specifically is not a beneficial or even a neutral 'feature' of the DMCA family of copyright laws as they stand now. I continue to feel concern that the CC efforts are unpicking access to collaborative projects because it is the way things are, rather than starting with the commons and participation as the fundamental ethical starting point and looking at what kinds of approaches will make that most possible/effective/durable/robust. Its a good project for a creative licensing group which works for authors. It seems to be a strange fit for a creative commons group. Janet _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
