> From: Philip Merrill > But we can boast Lessig -- that counts for something, I guess.
Hmmm. I'm having my doubts about Lessig. I would have suggested Stallman if I were you. I recently posted the following comment to Rob Myer's blog: http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/08/23/debian-drm-and-misunderstanding-fr eedom/ On a tangential note, I'm worrying about the essential similarity of Creative Commons and DRM, and that by induction, if Creative Commons is a legal tool to provide artists with a facility to fine tune the freedoms they would permit their audience, DRM must also be good in providing a technical tool to do the same. CC (like the GPL to some extent) almost demonstrates the case for the default curtailment of cultural freedom precisely in order that the originating artist (being its legitimate guardian) can determine if or when liberties may be taken with it, and moreover to have precision over which are granted and to what extent. Utter bunkum of course. CC should be about encouraging the artist to 'let go', and perhaps to at least let go in part rather than in whole as the GPL would abjure. This letting go 'in part' is in extreme danger of demonstrating the moral rectitude that it is the artist who should have the rightful entitlement to absolute veto, and the philanthropic opportunity to demonstrate their beneficience when the occasion or whim suits them. So, why not, by inference conclude that DRM too, should be enjoyed by all artists, that they may then possess even finer control over the liberties they can permit? "Whereas before I would have permitted no more than a single private copy of my performance, I now permit five private copies. Truly, the expression of my generosity is greatly enabled by the technological advance that DRM has provided". CC is flawed in that it consolidates the perception that the artist should be able to control the use of their art. At least the GPL strives to preserve all freedoms (unreservedly relinquished by the author), and not simply provide a set of tick-boxed permissions for proprietary authors to consider granting, e.g. unlimited backup copies, non-commercial use, etc. CC consolidates copyright. It is as if the IP maximalists said to a great lawyer "How can we get the masses to respect our copyrights?", and he replied "Simple: encourage the masses to embrace copyright themselves, in everything they do. If everyone believes in it, it becomes more powerful. They will then perceive their use of manacles upon their culture as enfranchising, as their own emancipation." If the people are their own publishers, let them think copyright is their privilege too. It's the classic pyramid selling scam - let the masses at the bottom think that, simply by observing the same rules, they can join those few at the top. _______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
