Copyright law does that, actually. ^^ A few of the CC licenses just allows people to choose to do so bring it about in a more reasonable timeframe.
]]>a) distinguish between forces of ‘good’ and forces of ‘evil’, because if you’re going to stoop to that level of non-thinking, you’d be the principles in the forces of ‘evil’ biz..
b) distinguish between the public domain and the non-public domain, and the inherent values of each
c) distinguish yourselves in your presumed domain of expertise, as well
Sorry, but you THEN go on to prove my points:
“Thus, DMCA-like…”
Yes, the meme-non-thinking involved is palpable to those with a sense of smell. Your CC license was (and I assume still is) DESIGNED TO FORCE EVERYBODY AND EVERYTHING INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.. not that you STARTED “freeculture.org”, right?�
Jesus Christ, are you incapable of putting two coherent thoughts together? What are you talking about? Please, for the love of god say something that makes sense!
In any event, you find yourself on the wrong side of history my friend. You may even be evil, but you may just be too stupid to form intent required to form evil thought. It�s too close to call.
]]>If I write an amazingly well-argued paper, and wish to distribute it under a Creative Commons license, I have that choice. Just as I have the choice to not distribute it at all, or to distribute it only to people willing to pay me a set amount.
The Creative Commons licenses just make it easier for me to write a license if I choose to not restrict end-readers.
]]>There is more than one Creative Commons license. None of them have the effect of making the work public domain, or of forcing anyone to do anything.
Creative Commons do provide a way of dedicating your work to the public domain if you so wish, but this is a separate service from their licenses.
This page explains how the Creative Commons licenses work:
http://creativecommons.org/learnmore
The hollywood lobbyists continually kick about words like “personal property rights” when they refer to copyrighted works.
It seems to me that this idea should be extended to the public as well no? the public also has a right to personal property. This is the foundation of fair use rulings, the idea that, at the very least in their own home, people have a right to do what they want with their stuff, weather its their cable tv, or their video games.
Under the DMCA, my modifying of my own Xbox console in my own home is considered “legally dubious”.
i think the point should be continually driven home that the individual public is entitled to personal property rights, and, as the hollywood interest continues to repeat, the foundation of capitalism is the concept of property ownership. It should be secured, but for the public as well.
]]>Hm. Now I understand why you called Lessig an IP-extremist. Personally, I think that before you start labeling someone’s position, it might help to understand it first. But that’s probably just me and my IP-extremist “friendz”.
]]>One particularly disturbing (and disgusting) comment i read on the blogged transcripts was a reference to copyright as a “fundamental human right”.
I want to know where that is written so i may burn all copies the document.
Normal citizens (or We the people) are getting the same treatment in congress and at wipo as african americans received back in the 30’s (even in the 50’s and 60’s they were treated with much greater respect than people who want the right to tinker with their own electronics, computers, and media).
With the level of intrenchment, it could be another 30 or 40 years of fighting before the world governments even consider the idea that copyright is a bargain with the public and not between two corporate sectors (CE & Content).
]]>James Jay Toran (jjt)
President
The Ohio Computer Systems Co.
Columbus, OH USA
E-mail: [email protected]
And given his past behavior, he needs to tone his comments down, and learn to take a joke.
]]>