complex law, simple code

I missed a string of comments about CC licenses and software. Shelley raises some great questions. Here’s the problem. We’re trying to develop tools to enable people to express their preferences as simply as possible. We can’t do much to make the underlying law simple.

I’ve tried to answer some of the questions in the extended entry. But I’m afraid Shelley will be right again: The answers will only raise more questions. There’s lots here to work out, and we can’t do all the working out.

First, here’s the mandatory disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. It is part of a conversation that a community must have.

The RSS/content puzzle is a great one. Like an envelope that says “the content included is under license X” but the content says “I’m under license Y”: How to read the two together? I agree there are potential problems, but I’m not convinced the solution is to terminate RSS license expressions. Part of the reason is that I don’t think we know where RSS will go. So let it grow, and let’s see.

But on the theory that we want to enable people to do what they want most easily, what makes most sense?

Regarding Jon Udell’s extraordinarily cool project, Matt is right. Though this is creative work, and one can license the copyright part of it using the CC license, the CC license doesn’t make the source/object distinction that other software licenses do. Again, this is a focus of the future, but we’re not there yet.

Posted in creative commons | Comments Off on complex law, simple code

bad news on the eldred front

IMG_0429.JPG
This is my co-counsel in the case, Jonathan Zittrain. An obvious mole. (A mouse like mole actually). No assessment of damage done yet.

Posted in eldred.cc | Comments Off on bad news on the eldred front

Broadband wars II

If you want to get an idea about how bad the broadband future will be, you need only read this letter from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association describing how good (from their perspective) the broadband future will be. NCTA wrote this letter to the FCC to criticize a letter filed by the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators. This Coalition, which includes Microsoft and Disney, told the FCC that it needed to assure that broadband remain neutral—that carriers not be permitted to discriminate in the service they offer based on the application or content the user wants.

This letter from the Coalition was great and important moment in the debate about broadband. I’ve been critical of Microsoft and Disney in the past, but they deserve all the credit in the world for taking up this fight. If neutrality is lost in the broadband platform, that means the end-to-end design of the internet will be lost as well. And that would profoundly weaken the potential for innovation and growth on the network.

The NTCA letter confirms the worst. After arguing at first that they are providing neutral service anyway (a claim which itself is false: have you checked your TOS re: servers?), they then go on to defend their right to discriminate however they wish. And they defend it by pointing to Microsoft: If Microsoft is allowed to cut special deals with partners, why shouldn’t the cable companies?

The level of ignorance here is astounding. We are four years into this debate, and apparently the cable companies have yet to even understand the argument they are attacking. The difference between Microsoft bundling products at the edge of the network, and the cable companies bundling preferred service in the middle of the network, is the difference between an end-to-end network and the Ma Bell network the internet replaced. This letter confirms that the cable companies do not begin to understand the value of end-to-end neutrality. It confirms precisely the claim of the Coalition: that left to its own devices, the dominant broadband provider in America (slow and expensive though it may be) sees no reason in the world why it shouldn’t corrupt the basic internet design.

Robert Sachs, president of the NCTA, is an extraordinarily bright man. He is also apparently a very busy man, for there is no way he could have written the letter he signed. The NCTA should spend some more money hiring press people who have taken the time to understand the arguments they want to rebut.

Meanwhile, we, broadband users of America, need to wake up to the broadband environment four years of do-nothing-ness have produced. “Open access” has been a failure in the United States (though a total success in Japan, where competition has driven prices down and service up: 100 mbs at $50 a month); the cable companies are, as we said four years ago, the single dominant provider of broadband in America. Their service is slow; it is getting more expensive; and now they claim the right to corrupt the basic design of the network they increasingly own. My last book was pessimistic: It was not pessimistic enough.

Posted in ideas | 4 Comments

Broadband wars I

The battle to build and keep broadband neutral is an important issue to me. I go a couple rounds on the FT.COM site about it here. Maybe it is just me, but these debates are never satisfying. The thrust of Tom Hazlett’s final response is that cable is much better than DSL, so don’t regulate cable. On cable, see the next post. But even ignoring the logic of the claim, we should not forget: However good cable is, does it begin to match the broadband options available elsewhere. Again, here in Japan: 100 mbs for $50 a month; 12 mbs for about half that. What cable company comes even close to that?

Posted in ideas | Comments Off on Broadband wars I

marriott takes to the air

As many are reporting, Marriott now promises Wi-Fi. No word on price. But I’ve got a word for the idea: Magic. seesupra.

Posted in heroes | Comments Off on marriott takes to the air

CC for software?

Matt Croydon wonders about how CC licenses will interact with software. In a careless earlier version of this, I said they won’t. Sam Ruby suggests the most I could mean by that is that our energy will be directed elsewhere. Indeed, that’s the most I mean. We share RMS’s concern that there is a proliferation of licenses in software. And our view was that there was a dearth for other creative content. Thus we start outside the software world. But creative reuse of creative content is what CC is all about. My apologies for any confusion.

Posted in creative commons | 20 Comments

Final 1976 Act Numbers

After some questions by readers, and suggestions by friends, Jason Schultz has produced his final report about the effect of invalidating the 1976 Copyright Act’s extension of copyrights. Bottom line: more support for the public domain.

Posted in eldred.cc | 3 Comments

the anticommons strikes again

Jabber has written a powerful piece about the threat that AOL’s patent covering IM technology creates for innovation in the IM market. Even if AOL does not enforce the patent, as Jabber argues, the threat that it may makes is much less likely that innovators will invest time to develop IM technology. AOL’s sword will be enough to keep innovation away, Jabber says.

These issues are complex, but this case does lots to highlight just what wrong about the software patent business. Does anyone really believe that there was inadequate incentives to be inventing in this area? Was there really a need for a government monopoly to help spur innovation? And even if there is, does a 20 year monopoly over something as fundamental as IM make sense to anyone?

Vardi and his son were brilliant inventors. They deserve all the credit in the world. And it is exactly the wrong (since self-defeating) response to now attack AOL: They are a business; the managers are hired to make money; they will make money however they can given the rules as they are.

The appropriate response is to attack the system. It is four years since a court held that software and business methods were patentable. What exactly have we done since then to get legislators to fix this mess?

Posted in bad law | Leave a comment

CC Launches

So just back to Japan after a quick trip to San Francisco to help many many extraordinary people launch Creative Commons. The event was fantastic, especially the Flash that explains our Licensing Project. Watch the flash, and check out the site. We are eager for feedback, and for ideas about where to go next.

I can’t begin to describe how grateful I am to everyone who made this happen. I am especially grateful to creators who have run with the licenses right away—heroes such as Cory Doctorow (who will be releasing under a CC license the entire text of his amazing book, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom as a free, freely redistributable e-book on January 9th. But buy the book as a present. It is the best novel I’ve read in years), and Peter Wayner (who has licensed his Free for All under a CC license), and Tim O’Reilly (the first adopter of the “Founders’ Copyright”).

It is no accident that those who understand this are those closest to technology. Our challenge will be to find ways to explain it so other creators get it as well. If you have ideas, or ideas for new projects, please let us know. Our single, overarching aim: build the public domain, by building projects that expand the range of creative work available for others to build upon.

Meanwhile, thanks to everyone who helped make this happen. And check on this channel for more news as the project develops.

Posted in creative commons | 2 Comments

cc launch

After many hours with lawyers, and many productive hours with tech-types, and lots of imagination by many, an idea first suggested by Hal Abelson and Eric Eldred will come to life on Monday, December 16: Creative Commons. Come see (though RSVP because we’re filling fast) and celebrate. ‘Tis the season to be giving, and this will be a great gift to the Commons.

Posted in creative commons | 1 Comment