I'm very, very curious... +++
Ms. Vogel states: [...] CC licenses are legally enforceable contracts. While I believe it's almost *always* better to find community-based, practical, business or technical solutions before weilding the hammer of "The Law", it shouldn't be forgotten that those CC licenses can be enforced if the content owner ultimately choses to do so. +++ Is there any precedent yet? Has anyone infringed a CC license, been taken to court and lost? Plus, Mr. Lessig has said over and over that one of the reasons he created CC was because tho there is fair use and etc theoretically available to independent producers but the practical economics of it make it impossible for small producers to fight for these rights. If one has to take a corp to court to defend one's CC licenses, don't these same economic restrictions come into play? On 2/2/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Colette Vogel co-wrote the Podcasting Legal Guide: > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide > > She sent this email to the group, but it wont go through because she's > not a member. > she makes some good points below. > > Jay > __________ > > This is a great discussion going on here, and I'm grateful to be on > the cc line and be able to read along and chime in. > > Being the lawyer that I am, I do want to raise one point that I hope > is not overlooked: Creative Commons licenses are not just a nice > statement of what a content owner would prefer people do with the > content they own, the CC licenses are legally enforceable contracts. > While I believe it's almost *always* better to find community-based, > practical, business or technical solutions before weilding the hammer > of "The Law", it shouldn't be forgotten that those CC licenses can be > enforced if the content owner ultimately choses to do so. > > Business ethics and good manners aside, and absent a fair use > defense, the blatant violation of the non-commercial use requirement > or the attribution requirement (just to name 2) of a CC license is > not just a bad thing to do from an ethics stand point, it's not > legal. Businesses who hinge their worth on such violations run a > serious risk that instead of spending their investor's money on > creating innovative Web 2.0 new media companies, they will spend that > money on defending federal copyright litigation. Not such a great > business plan, imho. > > I really encourage the community to resolve these disputes in a > manner that respects the creator's rights and choices, encourages > free speech and free culture, and permits the true innovators in this > new media revolution to succeed. If we can do that, then we'll be on > our way to a more balanced copyright system and a whole host of other > good things. It's not necessarily going to be easy, but the law does > provide some baselines that we can start with. > > And, for any of you interested in the nitty gritty legal side of > this, the latest episode of This Week In Law has a great discussion > on the legalities of RSS-feed aggregation with some legal and > business powerhouses. The episode is available from this link: http:// > www.twit.tv/twil. > > On that, I do look forward to further discussion and hopefully real- > world solutions to these issues. (And, no, Creative Commons is not BS!) > > Colette > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > Colette Vogele, Esq. > Vogele & Associates > 580 California Street > Suite 1600 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > office 415.751.5737 > mobile 415.205.5737 > email [EMAIL PROTECTED] <colette%40vogelelaw.com> > skype colettevogele > blog http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/colette-vogele > podcast: www.rulesfortherevolution.com > > -- <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
