Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:25:58 -0500 From: Dan Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Lessig the Grey vs. Creative Commons To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Far be it for me to defend Larry Lessig (not that I don't want to, but he's more than capable of defending himself) however Scott Matthews' comments about Grey Tuesday/Lessig was annoyingly stupid. Mr Matthews suggests that Larry's view about the appropriate scope of copyrights in sound recordings (LL's comments that there should be a right to remix without permission and so on) somehow infects the Creative Commons licenses. Larry's position on copyright reform is wholly independent of the work of Creative Commons, which provides nothing more than a framework of standard licenses within the current copyright system.
Until such time as Congresspersons turn their collective backs on the payola of intellectual property special interests and change copyright to recognize the public domain, the Creative Commons licenses provide a relatively simple licensing regime for those who--unlike Mr Matthews--don't believe that every piece of intellectual content needs to be commodified.
Of course it doesn't alter the fact that, by reproducing his email below, I have infringed Mr Matthews copyright. But I'm an IP law professor, so unlike most people playing this game I can take care of myself. But I worry when stalking horses for the music business misrepresent both the law and the facts. I'm a generous soul and so I don't believe Mr Matthews to be evil. Just stupid.
------- Dan Hunter Robert F. Irwin IV Term Assistant Professor of Legal Studies The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania 662 John M Huntsman Hall 3730 Walnut Street Philadelphia PA 19104 USA
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:35:56 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Lessig the Grey vs. Creative Commons
Dave, I hope of interest to IP...
Given the recent Grey Tuesday brouhaha that followed the release of DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album, it's worth pausing for a moment to take a look at the Creative Commons:
"We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them -- to declare 'some rights reserved.'"
Among the rights an artist may choose to reserve when configuring their Creative Commons license is "No Derivative Works," explained in cartoon here:
Indeed, the Creative Commons' leading example musician is Roger McGuinn who: "chose the Creative Commons license that maximizes a combination of free distribution with artistic control and integrity." -- note that Roger McGuinn chose "No Derivative Works."
However, the Grey Tuesday movement seeks to take that right away. Notably, Larry Lessig (Creative Commons Chairman of the Board) commented in his blog:
"Should the law give DJ Danger Mouse the right to remix without permission? I think so, though I understand how others find the matter a bit more grey."
"Should the law give DJ Danger Mouse a compulsory right to remix? That is, the right, conditioned upon his paying a small fee per sale? Again, I think so, and again, you might find this a bit less grey."
So, what exactly does Creative Commons mean by "some rights reserved" -- would it perhaps be more accurate if they said: "some rights reserved until we can cook up a new compulsory license to take those rights away"?
Scott Matthews http://www.turnstyle.com/andromeda
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/