This was a technical issue. I tried to change the author to dpic but my username wasn't on the dropdown list.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Parker Higgins <[email protected]>wrote: > Sorry for not engaging with the content (it's late and I have to get up > early tomorrow... longer letter later) but it's a bit odd that this post is > attributed to "admin." It looks like all previous posts have an author > attached; is there a technical issue at hand here? > > Maybe I'm over-thinking, but this seems like a different stance than the > organization has taken publicly (insofar as it does that at all). As such, > it seems odd to have this also be the least individually attributed post > we've ever made. > > P > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Students for Free Culture < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Over the past several years, Creative Commons has increasingly >> recommended free culture licenses over non-free ones. Now that the >> drafting process for version 4.0 of their license set is in full gear, >> this is a “[a once-in-a-decade-or-more opportunity][1]” to deprecate the >> proprietary NonCommercial and NoDerivatives clauses. This is the best >> chance we have to dramatically shift the direction of Creative Commons >> to be fully aligned with the [definition of free cultural works][2] by >> preventing the inheritance of these proprietary clauses in CC 4.0′s >> final release. >> >> The concept of free culture has its roots in the history of free >> software (popularly marketed as "open source software"), and it’s an >> important philosophical underpinning to the CC license set. As with free >> software, the word "free" in free culture means free as in freedom, not >> as in price, but Creative Commons has not [set or adhered to any >> standard or promise of rights][3] or taken [any ethical position][4] in >> their support of a free culture. The definition of free cultural works >> describes the necessary freedoms to ensure that media monopolies cannot >> form to restrict the creative and expressive freedoms of others and >> outlines [which restrictions are permissible or not][5]. Although >> Creative Commons provides non-free licenses, the fact that they >> recognize the definition reveals a willingness and even desire to >> change. >> >> Creative Commons started off by focusing much more on flexibility for >> rightsholders, but since its early days, the organization has moved away >> from that position. Several projects and licenses have been retired such >> as the Sampling, Founders' Copyright, and Developing Nations License. >> It's obvious that something like Founders' Copyright which keeps "all >> rights reserved" for 14 years (before releasing into the public domain) >> is not promoting free culture. Giving rightsholders more options and >> easier ways to choose what rights they want to give others actually >> reinforces permission culture, creates a fragmented commons, and takes >> away freedom from all cultural participants. >> >> **What's wrong with NC and ND?** >> >> The two proprietary clauses remaining in the CC license set are >> [NonCommercial][6] (NC) and [NoDerivatives][7] (ND), and it is time >> Creative Commons stopped supporting them, too. Neither of them provide >> better protection against misappropriation than free culture licenses. >> The ND clause survives on the idea that rightsholders would not >> otherwise be able protect their reputation or preserve the integrity of >> their work, but all these [fears about allowing derivatives][8] are >> either permitted by fair use anyway or already protected by free >> licenses. The [NC clause is vague][9] and survives entirely on two even >> more misinformed ideas. First is rightsholders' fear of giving up their >> copy monopolies on commercial use, but what would be considered >> commercial use is necessarily ambiguous. Is distributing the file on a >> website which profits from ads a commercial use? [Where is the line >> drawn][10] between commercial and non-commercial use? In the end, it >> really isn't. It does not increase the potential profit from work and it >> does not provide any better protection than than Copyleft does (using >> the ShareAlike clause on its own, which is a free culture license). >> >> The second idea is the misconception that NC is anti-property or anti- >> privatization. This comes from the name NonCommercial which implies a >> Good Thing (non-profit), but it's function is counter-intuitive and >> completely antithetical to free culture (it [retains a commercial >> monopoly][11] on the work). That is what it comes down to. The NC clause >> is actually the closest to traditional "all rights reserved" copyright >> because it treats creative and intellectual expressions as private >> property. Maintaining commercial monopolies on cultural works only >> enables middlemen to continue enforcing outdated business models and the >> restrictions they depend on. We can only evolve beyond that if we >> abandon commercial monopolies, eliminating the possibility of middlemen >> amassing control over vast pools of our culture. >> >> Most importantly, though, is that both clauses do not actually >> contribute to a shared commons. They oppose it. The fact that the ND >> clause [prevents cultural participants from building upon works][12] >> should be a clear reason to eliminate it from the Creative Commons >> license set. The ND clause is already the least popular, and >> discouraging remixing is obviously contrary to a free culture. The >> NonCommercial clause, on the other hand, is even more problematic >> because it is not so obvious in its proprietary nature. While it has >> always been a popular clause, it's use has been in slow and steady >> decline. >> >> Practically, the NC clause only functions to cause problems for >> collaborative and remixed projects. It prevents them from being able to >> fund themselves and locks them into a proprietary license forever. For >> example, if Wikipedia were under a NC license, it would be [impossible >> to sell printed or CD copies of Wikipedia][13] and reach communities >> without internet access because every single editor of Wikipedia would >> need to give permission for their work to be sold. The project would >> need to survive off of donations (which Wikipedia has proven possible), >> but this is much more difficult and completely unreasonable for almost >> all projects, especially for physical copies. Retaining support for NC >> and ND in CC 4.0 would give them much more weight, making it extremely >> difficult to retire them later, and continue to feed the fears that >> nurture a permission culture.**** >> >> **Why does this need to happen now?** >> >> People have been vocal about this issue for a long time, and awareness >> of the problematic nature of ND and NC has been spreading, especially in >> the areas of [Open Educational Resources][14] (such as OpenCourseWare) >> and [Open Access to research][15]. With the percentage of CC-licensed >> works that permit remixing and commercial use having [doubled][16] since >> Creative Commons' first year, it's clear that there is a growing >> recognition that the non-free license clauses are not actually >> necessary, or even good. >> >> Both NC and ND are incompatible with free licenses and many, if not the >> vast majority, of NC and ND licensed works will not be relicensed after >> CC 4.0, so the longer it takes to phase out those clauses, the more >> works will be locked into a proprietary license. There will never be a >> better time than this. Creative Commons has been shifting away from non- >> free licenses for several years, but if it does not abandon them >> entirely it will fail as a commons and [divide our culture][17] into >> disconnected parts, each with its own distinct licence, rights and >> permissions granted by the copyright holders who 'own' the works. >> >> In December of 2006, Creative Commons implemented a subtle difference >> between the pages for free culture and non-free licenses: green and >> yellow background graphics (compare [Attribution-ShareAlike][18] to >> [Attribution-NonCommercial][19]). This was also when they began using >> license buttons that include license property icons, so that there would >> be an immediate visual cue as to the specific license being used before >> clicking through to the deed. In February of 2008, they began using a >> seal on free culture licenses that said "[Approved for Free Cultural >> Works][20]", which was another great step in the right direction. In >> July of this year, Creative Commons released a [completely redesigned >> license chooser][21] that explicitly says whether the configuration >> being used is free culture or not. This growing acknowledgement of free >> vs. non-free licenses was a crucial development, since being under a >> Creative Commons license is so often equated with being a free cultural >> work. Now, retiring the NC and ND clauses is a critical step in Creative >> Commons' progress towards taking a pro-freedom approach. >> >> The NC and ND clauses not only depend on, but also feed misguided >> notions about their purpose and function. With that knowledge, it would >> be a mistake not to retire them. Creative Commons should not depend on >> and nurture rightsholders' fears of misappropriation to entice them into >> choosing non-free CC licenses. Instead of wasting effort maintaining and >> explaining a wider set of conflicting licenses, Creative Commons as an >> organization should focus on providing better and more consistent >> support for the licenses that really make sense. We are in the perfect >> position to finally create a unified and undivided commons. Creative >> Commons is at a crossroads.This decisive moment will in all likelihood >> bind their direction either being stuck serving the fears that validate >> permission culture or creating a shared commons between all cultural >> participants. >> >> We don't want the next generation of the free culture movement to be >> saddled with the dichotomies of the past; we want our efforts to be >> spent fighting the next battles.**** >> >> **What should we do? ** >> >> There have been lots of discussions on the CC-license list about >> promoting free culture licenses and discouraging proprietary ones. A >> couple of proposals have been made to encourage the use of free licenses >> over the non-free ones. >> >> One is a rebranding of the non-free licenses. They could be >> differentiated in a much more significant way than it currently is, such >> as referring to NC and ND as the "Restricted Commons" or "Limited >> Commons" or some variant thereof. License buttons could also be color >> coded in the same way that license pages are (green for free culture >> licenses, yellow for proprietary ones). Another proposal is to rename >> NonCommercial to something more honest such as CommercialMonopoly. >> >> While these proposals and other ideas are certainly worth supporting, we >> should not lose sight on our ultimate goal: for Creative Commons to stop >> supporting non-free licenses. We should not feel like this is impossible >> to achieve at this point, as it will be much more difficult to do later. >> More people than ever are starting to advocate against proprietary CC >> licenses, and there is clear evidence and reasoning behind these >> arguments. We have the power to prevent the inclusion of non-free >> clauses in this upcoming version of the Creative Commons License set. >> >> To join us in resisting the inclusion of proprietary clauses in CC 4.0, >> there are a few important things you can do: >> >> * Send a letter to the [Creative Commons Board of Directors][22] about >> your concerns. >> >> * Publish your letter or a blog post on the issue (and send it to the >> list below) >> >> * Join the Creative Commons licenses development list to participate >> in discussions of the 4.0 draft: >> [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses][23] >> >> * Contribute to the CC 4.0 wiki pages: >> [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0][24] >> >> [1]: http://governancexborders.com/2011/09/17/cc-global-summit-2011 >> -pt-iii-discussing-the-non-commmercial-module/<http://governancexborders.com/2011/09/17/cc-global-summit-2011%0A-pt-iii-discussing-the-non-commmercial-module/> >> >> [2]: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition >> >> [3]: http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html >> >> [4]: http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20040917-00 >> >> [5]: http://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions >> >> [6]: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC >> >> [7]: http://robmyers.org/2010/02/21/why_nd_is_neither_necessary_nor_s >> ufficient_to_prevent_misrepresentation/<http://robmyers.org/2010/02/21/why_nd_is_neither_necessary_nor_s%0Aufficient_to_prevent_misrepresentation/> >> >> [8]: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26549 >> >> [9]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13556_3-9823336-61.html >> >> [10]: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc- >> licenses/2005-April/002215.html >> >> [11]: http://robmyers.org/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not- >> copyleft/<http://robmyers.org/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-%0Acopyleft/> >> >> [12]: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110704/15235514961/shouldnt- >> free-mean-same-thing-whether-followed-culture-software.shtml<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110704/15235514961/shouldnt-%0Afree-mean-same-thing-whether-followed-culture-software.shtml> >> >> [13]: >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing/Justifications >> >> [14]: http://kefletcher.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-not-nc-non- >> commercial.html >> >> [15]: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal >> .pbio.1001210 >> >> [16]: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/28041 >> >> [17]: >> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/commons_without_commonality >> >> [18]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ >> >> [19]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ >> >> [20]: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8051 >> >> [21]: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/33430 >> >> [22]: mailto:Hal%20Abelson%20%3Chal%40mit.edu%3E%2C%20Glenn%20Otis%20 >> Brown%20%3Cgotisbrown%40gmail.com%3E%2C%20Michael%20Carroll%20%3Cmcarrol >> l%40wcl.american.edu%3E%2C%20Catherine%20Casserly%20%3Ccathy%40creativec >> ommons.org%3E%2C%20Caterina%20Fake%20%3Ccaterina%40caterina.net%3E%2C%20 >> Brian%20Fitzgerald%20%3Cbrian.fitzgerald%40acu.edu.au%3E%2C%20Davis%20Gu >> ggenheim%20%3Cakhawkins%40mac.com%3E%2C%20Joi%20Ito%20%3Cjoi%40ito.com%3 >> E%2C%20Lawrence%20Lessig%20%3Clessig%40pobox.com%3E%2C%20Laurie%20Racine >> %20%3Cracine%40lulu.com%3E%2C%20Eric%20Saltzman%20%3Cesaltzman%40pobox.c >> om%3E%2C%20Annette%20Thomas%20%3CAnnette%40macmillan.co.uk%3E%2C%20Molly >> %20Van%20Houweling%20%3Cmsvh%40pobox.com%3E%2C%20Jimmy%20Wales%20%3Cjwal >> es%40wikia.com%3E%2C%20Esther%20Wojcicki%20%3Cesther%40creativecommons.o >> rg%3E%2C%20 >> >> [23]: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses >> >> [24]: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 >> >> URL: >> http://freeculture.org/blog/2012/08/27/stop-the-inclusion-of-proprietary-licenses-in-creative-commons-4-0/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss >> > > > > -- > parker higgins > san francisco, ca > > http://parkerhiggins.net > > gmail / gchat: [email protected] > twitter / identi.ca: @xor > skype: thisisparker > > please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a > proprietary platform > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
