IANAL, but isn't this conversation missing the crucial point that Termination of Transfer rights are unwaivable? Perhaps this is besides the point, but it would seem that it applies equally to every other kind of license (GPL, FDL, real commercial licenses), so CC is no worse off than the rest of them. That said, shouldn't CC be commended for bothering to educate people about a unwaivable right that will ostensibly apply to their licenses? Other licenses (or licensors) certainly make no efforts to do so.
Ulitmately, and this, I think is Crosbie's point, as long as CC applies on top of copyright granted by the 76 Act, and not in place of it, there's no way to avoid ToT concerns, but maybe that is too narrow of an interpretation. F On 2/27/07, Crosbie Fitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
-- The content of this email message is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights Reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
