On Feb 27, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Janet Hawtin wrote:
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.
I will resend.
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.
This is not correct. The termination of transfers provision excepts
derivatives. See "So, I get all my rights back?" at http://
labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php
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.
it may be, but CC is 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.
We're actually not. We're not permitted in some contexts. And (in my
view) it is not helpful in others. CC is trying to build a better
system, given the existing system. But obviously many of us want a
better system (and work to get such in other parts of our lives).
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.
So this means we should just let them enforce the tenancy they've
already created?
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.
Termination came in the 1976 Act, to replicate the effect of a term
renewal requirement -- long before the DMCA.
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.
This is a valid concern. It doesn't apply to this particular project.
We want to liberate a bunch of content so authors have a choice to do
something with it TODAY -- namely participate in the open access
movement for scientific works. That enhances the ethic of sharing in
those domains, because now the excuse "yea, well my publisher has all
my rights" no longer is absolute.
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.
CC works for authors who believe that balance works for culture. I
don't agree that we should cede "authors" to groups that believe that
balance is for sissies.
Janet
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
______________
Lawrence Lessig
American Academy in Berlin
Am Sandwerder 17/19
Berlin D-14109
office: +4930/804 83 301
home: +4930/804 83 203
cell: +49/1515 907 6197
fax: +4930/804 83 222
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assistant: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
Lessig
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
650.736.0999 (vx)
650.723.8440 (fx)
Ass't: Elaine Adolfo <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://lessig.org> [on the web]
<http://lessig.org/blog> [comments in general]
<http://free-culture.org> [my latest book]
<http://creativecommons.org> [our project to free culture]
<http://publicknowledge.org> [framing policy in DC]
<http://eff.org> [fighting for truth, etc.]
<http://plos.org> [freeing science]
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
