Creative Commons

Cory Doctorow interviewed by Bit-Tech

Wil Harris from Bit-Tech conducted an interview with Cory Doctorow that included:

One of the theme's of Cory's copyright writing is that "Bits are never going to get harder to copy". As cracking technology easily keeps pace with encryption, any business plan which relies on 'better' encryption to succeed is destined to fail. The reason why can be summed up in this excerpt from his 2004 address to Microsoft:

DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely months. It's not because the people who think them up are stupid. It's not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key. At this point, the secret isn't a secret any more.


'Copyright criminals' look to remix the noise--legally

This CNET News.com article by Daniel Terdiman includes:

In choosing the topic for "Copyright Criminals," McLeod and Franzen are challenging that dynamic. They believe creativity is better served by letting artists borrow from others. And Creative Commons, with its licenses, believes it is providing an environment that protects artists' rights while still making it possible for musicians and others to sample previous work.

UK Open Knowledge Forum Network "open content" panel.

I wanted to point people to the talk given in London, England, on Wednesday 22nd February 2006. An audio recording has been pointed to from Cory Doctorow's BLOG, with Cory being one of the participants.

As a teaser:

Cory discusses some of his personal experiences as a science fiction writer thinking about the future ways of making money with literary works. He discusses how charismatics, with their on-stage presence, saw the advent of radio as destroying their profession. This gave way to virtuosity being the most important quality. We now have the virtuosos complaining that new media transforms again, with the most successful artists being those who now build relationships with fans. Virtuosos are a dime a dozen, but friends and even acquaintances are few. It is now the relationship builders, not the virtuosos or the charismatics, that will survive. Interestingly, this relationship building may restore some of the value of the charismatics of the past: technology giveth, and technology taketh away.

The ideas interview: Lawrence Lessig

This Guardian interview of Lawrence Lessig by John Sutherland includes:

So is public domain a dead duck?

"The public domain has been so important historically in fuelling the spread of culture and keeping competition up and prices down. But copyright terms have recently been extended so repeatedly - Europe is now adopting a life plus 70 [years] term - and the US has extended the terms of existing copyrights 11 times in 40 years. So there's this ever-increasing pressure to expand the term of copyright. That's great for the 1% of creative work that continues to have any commercial life more than 10 years after its initial publication. But for the other 99%, all the copyright system does is lock it down and make it inaccessible."

US Creative Commons looking for support...

From their site:

A donation to CC demonstrates your commitment and sends a strong message to the community that you’re behind us 100%. Please help us by becoming a CCommoner today.

While they clearly have considerable moral support given the number of creators who use their licenses, and they have foundation support, the IRS requires more diversity in financial donations to retain US charitable status.

Jefferson Debate: A Godwin's law for copyright discussions?

(Versions carried by p2pnet and MP3Newswire)

Online there is a relatively well known concept called Godwin's Law which suggests that once a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is made that a conversation should be declared to be over. Once these analogies are made, any ability to have a rational conversation is dead and all focus will be on the analogy.

CopyNight - Tuesday, November 22

Every fourth Tuesday, fans of free culture gather in cities across North America to talk about the conflicts between freedom and intellectual property regulation. Welcome to this month's CopyNight: Tuesday, November 22, around 7pm.

So far only a few Canadian cities are involved: Toronto and
Montreal. I would be interested to co-host one in Ottawa if there is anyone interested. We may be able to tie this directly into Free Culture campus groups being launched at Carleton University and Ottawa University.

Dvorak on Creative Commons: “Humbug!”

Blogger Joe Gratz critiques John C. Dvorak's critique of the Creative Commons.

Some of his criticisms are valid; others, based on a misunderstanding of the Creative Commons licenses or the role of Creative Commons as an organization; others still, based on dangerous misconceptions about the law.

While he upsets others, I am thankful of Dvorak's article as it encouraged more people to write informative articles on Creative Commons to counter Dvorak's misconceptions. The more people who understand how it really works the better. It also inspired people like Pamela Jones of Grocklaw to offer their stories of inspiration.

CBC viewpoint: I'm not in favour of stealing but …

This CBC viewpoint by Greg Hughes includes:

C-60 is dangerous and anti-democratic for many reasons. The proposed law is largely based on tenets of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s approach to copyright, which effectively places the role of intellectual property above the public interest of information sharing, collaboration and innovation.

Globe and Mail: Music's copyright defenders face an unstoppable force

This oddly titled article by Joshua Ostroff speaks about the growing separation between those protecting copyright and those protecting musicians right to create and perform their art.

"From a voracious, litigious viewpoint it's sue-bait," Joyce concedes. "Michael Jackson could sue for using The Beatles, though I tend to think he's got enough problems. Technically, what we're doing is infringing on copyright but we're trying to make a point that it's a silly, destructive and inhibitory law. It's anti-art, in effect."

Article includes quotes from Creative Commons Canada cooredinator Marcus Bornfreund.

Syndicate content