Creative Commons

FirstMonday: The politics of the libre commons

FirstMonday: The politics of the libre commons by David M. Berry and Giles Moss


The project of ‘free culture’ is committed to the creation of a cultural space, rather like the ‘public domain’, seeking to complement/replace that of proprietary cultural commodities and privatized meaning. This has been given a new impetus with the birth of the Creative Commons. This organization has sought to introduce cultural producers across the world to the possibilities of sharing, co–operation and commons–based peer–production by creating a set of interwoven licenses for creators to append to their artwork, music and text.

Wired: People Power

A Wired Magazine (July 2006) article by Chris Anderson includes:

Blogs, user reviews, photo-sharing – the peer production era has arrived.
First, steam power replaced muscle power and launched the Industrial Revolution. Then Henry Ford’s assembly line, along with advances in steel and plastic, ushered in the Second Industrial Revolution.
Now we have armies of amateurs, happy to work for free. Call it the Age of Peer Production. From to MySpace to craigslist, the most successful Web companies are building business models based on user-generated content.

"Darknet" Book Reviewed by TidBITS

Adam Engst, editor of the venerable Macintosh mailing list TidBITS, has an excellent review of J.D. Lasica's new book Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation in this week's TidBITS edition. The book chronicles the legal struggles of average citizens who have been caught up in the United States by their copyright regime, struggling for what most would deem common-sense use of their purhcased media. The author explains the DMCA and other 'Content Cartel'-inspired legislation in the US and consequences of these laws, and could serve as an illuminating read for those considering changes to Canada's copyright regime. Engst writes:

More on Captain Copyright

Personally, I'm quite impressed that someone has taken the time to help teach children about copyright concepts. Since these concepts embody some of the rules that assist us in our exchange of creative ideas, they should be explained to children in a clear, balanced manner.

There are a number of errors of omission in the lessons on the site. The teacher's notes to Activity 4 do not explain Private Copying. Perhaps a less controversial example (rather than music downloading) could have been used?

I'm also concerned if the discussion of things like Activities like 3 & 4 are valuable when teaching Grades 1-3. I'm not certain that children of this age can grasp the "world economic impact of copyright" (I'm still struggling with this question!). Perhaps discussion of artists and the role of art in our society might be a better form of introduction?

How CMEC and Access Copyright seek to destroy the Internet.

(Also published by p2pnet)

Howard Knopf has a great article on the Internet Educational Copyright Exemption Debate in Canada. I agree with him in that both the educational community and the collective societies have got it wrong, as I have written in the past (Paying protection money to Access Copyright and Reply to Hill Times about AUCC guest column).

Both parties are pushing a false-rhetoric that work is either in the "public domain" (IE no longer subject to copyright) or royalties are legitimately expected. This ignores the vast majority of works published on the "no password required" part of the Internet where neither is true.

Commentary on Captain Copyright

I have my own commentary on the Captain Copyright website. A collegue, MC, attempted to send his thoughts to the Captain but unfortunately the Captain does not seem to be ready to receive e-mail yet. I'm reprinting those comments (with permission) as inspiration to others who might want to send a balanced comment to the Captain.

I just stumbled on your website. It's quite interesting. As a software developer I think it is important that people understand the importance of copyright. However, while the information that is contained on the website is quite accurate, I am a bit worried that children will emerge thinking that there is only one way to deal with copyrighted information.

U.S. advised to promote open standards, source, innovation

A LinuxDevices article includes:

A business- and university-led public policy group has issued a downloadable 72-page report examining open standards, open source software, and "open innovation." The report concludes that openness should be promoted as a matter of public policy, in order to foster innovation and economic growth in the U.S. and world economies.
The report was released by the Committee for Economic Development (CED), a non-profit, non-partisan public policy research organization comprised of about 200 senior corporate executives and university leaders.
The CED report concludes that intellectual property (IP) law and business practices designed for the trade of physical goods threaten economic development and innovation in digital information product markets such as software.

(emphasis added)

Creative Commons license upheld by court

This article by Ingrid Marson, Special to CNET includes:

A court in the Netherlands has ruled that a Creative Commons license is binding, in a case brought against a Dutch gossip magazine by an ex-MTV star.

This is one of the first times that the license--which offers more flexibility than traditional copyright licenses--has been tested in a court of law, according to legal Web site Groklaw.

A tale of two competitions...

I have a theory when it comes to what is happening in France, and I am looking for feedback.

In the pay-per-download music marketplace there are really only a few groups of competitors: Apples "FairPlay", sites using the Microsoft DRM (Puretracks, Napster, etc, etc), sites using RealNetworks or other obscure DRM, and DRM-free files. The bill makes clear that compatibility with DRM-free files will not be offered, since converting to a DRM-free file has excessive penalties.

Apple dominates this market, and Microsoft is not happy with this. Microsoft and their dependants (The major labels seem to be in this camp) have been lobbying hard to make Apples FairPlay compatible with Microsoft's DRM. The government and these lobbiests can't be honest and name Microsoft, so they claim to be trying to make all DRM compatible, even if there are really only two competitors worthy of mention.

Independent authors just wanting a little respect... from fellow creators and collective societies

(Also carried by p2pnet. Christopher Moore offered a followup BLOG reply, indicating he edited the article I was replying to.)

Following the meeting with John Degen, and his support for the idea that we have respect for the interests of fellow creators, I want to try to comment on some things said Christopher Moore on the Creators Copyright Coalition BLOG. There are two themes: unhelpful redefinitions of words, and misunderstandings about the objections some people have about collective societies.

The unhelpful redefinition of "copyleft"

The term copyleft has existed for over two decades, and was first defined by the Free Software foundation as follows:

Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.

What is Copyleft, Free Software Foundation

Syndicate content