-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I concur with Fred here. ToT exists. Period. It's the law (at least in the U.S.). No two ways around it.
The question from CC's POV is only: should they build a tool that makes it easier for people to utilize this feature of the law? As has been pointed out, this could cut both ways. But in fact, all of CC's tools share this same bug / feature. Think, for instance, of the act of tagging works with CC licenses and metadata to identify which rights are "reserved". This actually makes it much easier, IMHO, to argue that peer-to-peer networks should only allow works to be traded with the author's explicit permission. In the late '90s, the advocates of free culture argued that such a system would be prohibitive to build; what CC has done since then is, in fact, show how it could be built. This irony was perhaps highlighted when Microsoft sponsored last year's iSummit. As the iCommoners exchanged confused looks, it was explained that Microsoft likes CC because CC encourages people to respect intellectual property. And it does. So the question should be, does making ToT easier to make, on balance, promote CC's goals? I think that CC has a purpose beyond helping people hack the law, so I suppose what we should ask is: does making ToT more accessible promote the creative commons? On balance, I think it does. Larry says that the goal is to make easier for academics to reclaim works published proprietary and make them open access. It seems to me that this will be the most likely use for the ToT tool for some time. Economically, the ToT tool lowers the cost to do something which is more or less altruistic (this is more likely to be the motivation to go OA, rather than some of the private benefits). If the cost to the author to use ToT is significantly higher than the benefit to the author, we can expect few people to use it for this purpose. The evidence bears this out. If we want more people to use ToT to free their works for OA, then we should lower the cost to use ToT, such as by CC's tool. (This is the same reason we do Linux installfests. If you want people to use Linux, make it easy for them to do so.) OTOH, people who would use ToT for proprietary benefit already have a profit incentive. The author (or heir, or third party) who wants to take back a work's free license and turn it proprietary is doing so because they hope to make money. Since their expected benefit is higher, they will be more willing to accept a higher cost, e.g. the cost of hiring a lawyer to do ToT. These people are already willing to accept a higher cost, so lowering the cost probably will not make much difference to them in terms of their likelihood to use ToT. Moreover, I would hope that authors who make their works free would have some commitment to keeping their works in the commons, and pass that commitment on to their heirs. Of course, that's a moral argument, but one can still hope. Finally, here's my question for the lawyers in here. I thought the ToT was just that, a termination of *transfer* -- i.e. I have transferred ownership of my copyright to another person. A CC license, et al. is not a transfer (except for Founder's License) -- it's a nonexclusive license. Does the ToT process actually revoke licenses as well? Gavin Fred Benenson wrote: > 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 >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF5Hy6tLXQdLhFpekRAjcdAKCQN1tu+tNXUIy3OhTZ0wPfvtm8KwCeOt2X WVGbgXeAG9pOoBMRwT42H9Q= =Dkcu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
