From: Fred Benenson
>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.
It depends upon which perspective you're looking at this from.
If you believe that copyright is the natural right of the author, then it is
laudable to bring to the author's attention the fact that they may repossess
the right they had previously transferred, that once again they may exert
their copyright to bestow a few freedoms here and there (or remove them).
However, if you believe that copyright is a misguided monopoly created for
printers, now corrupted into an author's wholly unethical and ineffective
exclusive property right over their published works, then all facilitation
of copyright's use and continued control over the suspension of the public's
liberty gives rise to dismay.
Copyright is a weapon for use by corporation against corporation - not by,
or against, mere mortals.
>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.
Yes. I think it's too narrow.
CC sustains the idea that an author retains control over their published
works, and facilitates the flexible use of this control (including transfer
and reversion of this control).
FC would return to the pre-copyright era where an author only retains
AUTHORSHIP to their published works - otherwise only enjoying control over
their unpublished work.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
