> From: Janet Hawtin > Terminating access on an open licence agreement does not feel > like balance. > It feels like a new and interesting way for agents/family associated > with x author to rip the rug out and hold ideas which have been shared > hostage for future commercial gain.
If you stop stubbornly thinking from a free culture perspective for a moment, and consider what your perspective would be if you believed copyright was an inescapable fact of life (irrespective of its merits) if not an author's god given right, then you'll probably understand CC a little better. As a mnemonic, think of CC as standing for "Consolidating Copyright - for the benefit of the author (and IP lawyers interested in creating a vast new market)". Everything CC is doing is giving the author far more flexibility over their use of copyright (whether they can afford lawyers to prosecute infringement or not). It gives authors the option of dedicating some of their work to a creative commons - to a greater or lesser extent (according to the inclinations of the author). What the termination of transfer does is get the author their copyright back (even if only for the benefit of their descendants). This is all perfectly inline with CC trying to put the sword of copyright back in the author's hands (against the interests of the publisher - and the public). So, bear in mind that CC is championing the author's retention of copyright, and demonstrating (through making its application more flexible) that it is not copyright that is necessarily unkind, but those authors who wield it unkindly (or who appoint unkind agents). CC is a pro-copyright organisation, not a copyright nullification organisation (although one of its licenses may come relatively close). Be very careful before you confuse CC as a champion of free culture. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
