This is very helpfully framed. For the Free Culture world does
include people who believe copyright anathema to Free Culture, and
people who believe (some form of -- certainly not what we've got now)
copyright is essential to Free Culture. It would be great to have a
discussion of this -- maybe a debate about this -- in a common venue.
Maybe I could convince Heather Ford who runs the iCommons summit
(icommons.org) to consider it.
On Feb 27, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Crosbie Fitch 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
______________
Lawrence Lessig
American Academy in Berlin
Am Sandwerder 17/19
Berlin D-14109
office: +4930/804 83 301
home: +4930/804 83 203
cell: +49/1515 907 6197
fax: +4930/804 83 222
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assistant: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
Lessig
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
650.736.0999 (vx)
650.723.8440 (fx)
Ass't: Elaine Adolfo <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://lessig.org> [on the web]
<http://lessig.org/blog> [comments in general]
<http://free-culture.org> [my latest book]
<http://creativecommons.org> [our project to free culture]
<http://publicknowledge.org> [framing policy in DC]
<http://eff.org> [fighting for truth, etc.]
<http://plos.org> [freeing science]
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
