My concern is that tot is a project to enable authors to remove access. My hope was that the Creative Commons group was about finding ways to encourage access and participation. Whether copyright is adapted to operate in a way which facilitates participation instead of binary fencing or if we are looking for a more negotiated space or fee for service approach which does not start from a copyright perspective I dont know. I just feel that the group I was visiting to look for first steps towards a legal understanding/promotion of participative culture was working on projects which are reducing access and making the idea of commons more tenuous.
That a law exists now to terminate transfer is one thing. That CC invests in that and is only about working within the existing model and not about starting with the idea of participation and commons and generating debate and projects to match those values was for me a disappointment. My core question is why is CC not best placed to promote and develop commons friendly law/policy? If there is a reason why that is a problem how does that work? How do people who are interested in promoting a commons based perspective avoid that block to make some space for debate and progress in this area? If Creative Commons cannot be a testbed for new models of generating value without reducing participation then where should we focus our efforts? Janet _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
