USWeb remakes the art of the Shill…
It looks like the folks at USWeb.com, a leading Internet marketing firm, have taken the idea of shilling one step further and could very well be in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. [Bravo 411 | May 06, 2005].

Does that mean the United States’ founding fathers were communists?

Jay eye enn gee oh,
Jay eye enn gee oh,
Jay eye enn gee oh,
and Jingo was his name-o.

I think that “no rights reserved” and “no rights conferred” would be a better way to describe the other end of the copyright spectrum, as it represents the public domain that was once an integral part of the copyright bargain. While we’re promoting less restrictive copyright terms, let’s not forget that even the CC licenses constitute a limited monopoly that should expire after a reasonable period of time.

That “no rights respected” is somehow the equivalent of “no rights conferred” is an unfair way to represent the copyright bargain. Let’s not forget that copyright is not a natural right, but a statutory one.

The only person who thought CC needed help, or to be “augmented” or that it wasn’t growing fast enough was Dave Balter.

The idea that CC was somehow falling short was introduced into this discussion by Balter. Go back and read his blog posts about CC. Now others are beginning to parrot the same line. Is the ulterior motive any clearer? A marketing company tells you you’re good, but not good enough. You need our help.

Its sad that CC is actually buying this stuff. Have some pride.

If BzzAgent is to be involved with CC in the future, its role should be clearly demarcated and visible to all.

I found out about CC from weblogs, from archive.org, from a number of mentions of “….and it’s licensed with a creative commons license!” that I saw and eventually clicked on and read. In other words, I saw it from people making stuff that I wanted to read, hear and see, and who mentioned this was how they would provide their works, and I got interested.

My project is going somewhere in the range of a few thousand individuals; the information on my project and mentions in the DVDs themselves all talk about how it is Creative Commons licensed, and people will hear of it that way, and word will grow.

I figured that’s how it was going to work. Was this third choice not growing fast enough? Why was the CC group worried?

And in the interest of doing so myself: an apology.