Another View of Creative Commons
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005 03:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rolanniNipped from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
badgermirlacca on a list we both frequent.
Creative Commons Humbug
By John C. Dvorak
Will someone explain to me the benefits of a trendy system developed by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford? Dubbed Creative Commons, this system is some sort of secondary copyright license that, as far as I can tell, does absolutely nothing but threaten the already tenuous "fair use" provisos of existing copyright law. This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.
If you are unfamiliar with this thing, be sure to go to the Web site and see if you can figure it out. Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law.
The rest of the editorial here
badgermirlacca on a list we both frequent.Creative Commons Humbug
By John C. Dvorak
Will someone explain to me the benefits of a trendy system developed by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford? Dubbed Creative Commons, this system is some sort of secondary copyright license that, as far as I can tell, does absolutely nothing but threaten the already tenuous "fair use" provisos of existing copyright law. This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.
If you are unfamiliar with this thing, be sure to go to the Web site and see if you can figure it out. Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law.
The rest of the editorial here
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-21 11:14 am (UTC)You're wrong.
A simple example: Suppose I have a car. I give you the car: I no longer own the car.
I have a story? I tell you the story: now you have the story, and I have the story. It doesn't magically erase itself from my head when I pass it on to you.
From this, we see that information is fundamentally different from physical goods. Trying to pretend otherwise is rubbish. To the extent that we treat it like property, we do so because of a body of law constructed -- originally -- to provide an incentive for us to create more information, for the public good. It's an artificial construct, not a natural one.