Photobucket
My Photo

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Official Second Life Blog

EngageDigital

« Twitter's Tupperware Parties | Main | Further on Creative Communism »

April 05, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cfe069e201156fe73778970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Creative Communism:

Comments

Prokofy Neva

BTW, Magnatune has another hippie shill, which is a sliding scale of payments. So instead of paying a flat fee for the full download or CD, it offers you the chance to select -- $5, $10, $18, depending on how poor/generous you feel (!).

What do people fall for this?!

The site has an alexa ranking of 80,000, with 290,000 yesterday.

Ann Otoole

NIN releases new album under Creative Commons License - http://theslip.nin.com

cube inada

good post.

Ill bet Metap will be CC heavy.;)

kevin kelly had his head handed to him on his own site, though i wouldnt be surprised if the replys are now re-edited. Ive posted the link here before to his 10,000 fans blog before--even the heresay musicians noted claimed they cant make a living on online clipits and long tails of no cents...;)

Felicia (i love her-len;) Day was in SL tonight. When asked what was the best way to have a successfull webisode show, the answer floating in the sim was a JOSS whedon TV show:)lol

Some forget theSPOT.com and the first web 1.0 pop.coms and stan lee medias brimming with websisodic episodes by speilbergs and steve martins..etc etc. all the kings horses for courses..lol that showed that even big media creative "indies" may have long tail problems when interests that drive internet technology are coming from those who dont see any other property they cant make as having any value.

anyhow---and i know how you hate "creative efforts" beyond the white picket fence banal.;) you win one for the right brain gipper with this post.

but expect another 5 years before most of them can realize they sold their souls to adobe-er the devil;)er a TOS , er google? er.. CC in metaSLbluemultitube;)

rupert murdock is hearing from the WIRED CC boyz tonight:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/murdoch-says-go.html

we dont want to pay to be FOX News stupid!. we want to be FREELY stupid to weekly watch his American Idol and DollHouse (whedon) shows:)

Rupert sadly now gets the "grown up" children he deserves.

1984-- im tellin ya--- Orwell happened and we all cheered at that apple commercial that showed it to us in a big picture at the most watched show of the year- the superbowl.

and they got "blade runner" MR. Dystopian CC metapunk hero artiste himself- Ridley Scott to direct it all:)

anyhow back to the show:)

Darien Caldwell

I understand what people hope to accomplish with Creative Commons. They want to give something away for free, yet retain full legal control over what is done with said free item.

Where it over-reaches is where they then try to exert control over what people can do with works derived from this completely free resource they have *chosen* to release to the world. That is where I have a problem with it.

Just imagine if this had been used in the past:

Einstein: "Here's the postulate to turning matter to energy. However you can only use it for making bombs, any use for peaceful purposes is prohibited by my license."

Caveman: "I just invented the wheel. I'm making it free to the world, but everything based on it must also be free."

The way the world works, people should be able to profit from their ideas, and knowledge is built on knowledge. If you suddenly start mandating that knowledge can not be profited from, two possibilities will materialize:

1) Knowledge which can not be profited from will be largely ignored and forgotten.

2) The Capitalist System will eventually collapse, as nobody will be able to profit from any innovations.

So I have to agree, the CC people must be communists, as they do seem to want to kill of Capitalism. I don't believe they want to relegate their works to the dust bin. However, in truth that will be the most likely scenario. Rejection of CC works is the only way to keep the Capitalist System pure and functioning.

Prokofy Neva

I appreciate that very important addition to my critique. In general, I feel as if we have to respect the wishes of the creator and if they have hobbled their creation by demanding that it be free and that we are forced to be passing it on, but we can't resell it, we're resigned to it up to a point.

If someone I commission and pay to make something explicitly asks me that they wish to have it remain free but not copyable, I feel I have to abide by that wish.

If someone distributes a freebie of the zillions of freebies out there of clothes and shoes and such designed to merely be loss-leaders to their store, I don't see that I should resell it.

But if some useful gadget that someone has made to be distributed everywhere to be useful, and it also gives them an automatic built-in credit by showing the author's name (which is why the CC license is simply unnecessary and extraneous for most of its stated purposes in SL), then I fail to see why I can't get some low price for it *because I'm displaying it and making it available on my tiered land*.

Even so, while I can abide by explicit wishes, I find the entire thing cries out for a robust critique, as you have given it. Indeed it does undermine capitalism and indeed that is precisely the idea, and one that Lessig, who always shrinks from being called a socialist or communist, need to account for. He is never confronted with it. He claims that tying up inventions with patents hobbles creativity. But "Freeing" it also hobbles commerce and payment of creators.

One of the "licenses" for CC offers the ability to give away something for free and indicate you don't mind if it is resold. But most people don't chose that because they feel absolutely no peer pressure to do so from the CC gang, and get absolutely no leadership on this from the CC leaders like Lessig or Ito.

The wealthy VC Joi Ito emphatically calls himself 'a venture communist". That's what's wrong with this bunch, they use the wealthy they've amassed from their tech businesses or inventions to undermine the very system that gave them that opportunity and those millions -- becaues they are heavily ideologically committed to a leftist view of a "better world" they feel is "progressive".

It's one thing to preach communism that involves taking other people's money; it's another to put it into practice with your own money, and that's why they get as far as they do, unfortunately.

I don't at all fear the CC as spreading and undermining capitalism, or that capitalism "will collapse" because I think the pushback is tremendous. SL is a good example -- nobody bothers with this ridiculous CC license and they make a buck or give stuff away with the DRM system such as it is, not even perceived as any annoying DRM to anybody (precisely because its mechanics involve "copy, no transfer" which is not physically possible in the real world with a CD).

Along the way, CC will do a lot of damage, mainly by knowledge getting lost that is not made practical and profited from through work and development, and undermining of people's capacity to earn. But people will push back, and are pushing back.

It definitely is a concerted effort to be creative with communism, to "slip it in" and make it appear as if it is not what it is. Lessig would try to parry your critique by saying, "But we have a license that does that." The reality is -- people don't use it. And if they want to profit from their inventions through micropayments, Comrade Larry doesn't let them because he doesn't like them or believe in them, like Clay Shirky doesn't like or believe them and rants that they are "impossible" to implement.

melponeme_k

"That inclines people to think that if they do NOT see the CC icon, they can do what they want."

Yes. This, this is the biggest harm all the CC malarky has accomplished. It has duped many people into thinking the content that the bloggers, flickr users, and the rest put up for -display only- is up for grabs.

I was once interested in CC until I had an experience that changed my mind. One of my photos was taken and under CC I could not complain. Sure the site gave credit. But that doesn't cover the RL costs that went into making the picture, the equipment, the time, the price of tickets etc. All of that is valuable and it extends into the final product. And it doesn't matter if the final essay, photo, drawing etc comes from an amateur or a professional, it deserves renumeration not just a "good boy!" pat on the head.

What I see with this CC, is a group of people who have climbed that ladder of success through luck, hard work and helped by All Rights Reserved protections. Then they are using CC to kick the ladder out from under the rest of us. So what will be then? Disney sure isn't going to CC their catalogue. I suppose these revolutionary souls want to force us, the little amateurs, to be CC and wait out the big corporations. That isn't going to happen.

AGF

i'll admit, I'm not much of a Lessig hater (I've found him to be rather benign, if he wanted to be more of a demagogue he could be without a problem), though Cory Doctorow tends to weird me out.

But as a professional writer I have some strong feelings about CC that cut to both sides of the argument.

On one hand, I work for an organization that charges a premium for some content under traditional copyright, while much of my work is CC licensed (noncommercial-attribution). Do I like it? Not at all. I think there's an unprofessional nature to the CC license that demeans my work when someone can just life the whole thing as long as it's "non-commercial" use. Screw that, pay me. But others who pay the bills have other ideas, so I leave it alone.

On the other hand, I take a lot of photos. And most of the are CC licensed, attribution, share-alike. I don't care. I'm not that good a photographer. The pictures that I take, I take for me, not for anyone else. And if I take them for someone else, they're a work-for-hire and I can't license them myself anyway.

So what does CC mean for me? It's just a (long-winded) explanation of fair use rights you probably had anyway, that the author is choosing to explicitly grant you. If he wants to get paid, he should just keep it under Berne-style automagic copyright.

I guess I'm a bit of a late convert. I don't think that "information wants to be free" so much anymore insofar as that information comes from someone else's hard work. But if they want to explicitly grant rights, that's fine. You don't NEED a CC license to grant them, but the pre-written language makes things much easier.

Oh, as an aside? I wouldn't put Lessig and Doctorow in the same sentence. One is a tenured professor at Harvard and Stanford Law who clerked for Scalia and Posner makes his living teaching, and is considered a serious legal scholar who has argued before the Supreme Court, while the other has dropped out of multiple universities without a degree, released a book no one would buy, and...runs a web site.

Clerking for Scalia and Posner is not a job for an idiot. Running BoingBoing? I'll leave that one alone.

Prokofy Neva

Lessig clerking for Scalia and Posner *means absolutely nothing to me*. This is constantly invoked to somehow justify and sanitize Lessig's reprehensible views and destructive ideological campaigns. You can mistake Fisking and fancy footwork and legal sophistry for "serious legal scholarship" until you actually sit down and go line by line, page by page, over Free Culture, and start analyzing it -- and easily debunking it -- as any intelligent person will be forced to do:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2008/12/liberating-free-culture-2-tinie-causby.html

One of the ways the fanboyz try to insulate Lessig from criticism that he is leftwing and even communist in some of his views is by citing this eternal "he clerked for Scalia and Posner" stuff. It's irrelevant. People get clerking jobs after law school. They get them where they get them. It has no bearing on their ideology later.

Cory is a popular culture superhero, not a legal scholar, but both of them are copyleftist rockstars and they both equally espouse the same ideological hacks.

You speak as people often do who generate both writings and photos. There's something about photos that many people "want to be free" because they say "I'm not that good" etc. as you do. Ok, well, then you shouldn't care if somebody copies your photo? And if you don't want to live in a world where that happens, be part of creating the culture of a social injunction, instead of the silly "license" totem.

If the "license" actually worked to spread the culture of a social injunction, that would be great, but all it spreads is the culture of "I don't need to be paid".

So you shouldn't be ambivalent about. You should be paid. Your organization is silly, and merely browbeaten by the PC gang. And if someone liked your photo and used it somewhere for something, a card, a poster, why couldn't they pay you something?

No, Lessig and company should never be forgiven for losing the historical opportunity to make a viable micropayments system that respected IP and made it easy and acceptable and fun for people to be paid. They really should be denounced for that. But it's not too late for some other group to come along and do this, and repudiate "Lessig as More" and get rid of all the hippie commie bullshit, and put in something that works. If you can pay for i-tunes, if you can pay for a used paperback on amazon.com if you can even pay for Magnatunes you can pay for everything! There are numerous payments systems out there, and the concept of microtransactions and virtual currencies is catching on everywhere. CC has to be overthrown on the way to making a viable system of payments for artists.

Landsend Korobase

Brilliant piece Prokofy (including your replies in the comments).

My background is having both a law degree and a philosophy degree, I have also taught at two universities across those disciplines, and with the benefit of that background and those experiences I am quite simply impressed at your knowledge, understanding and reasoning.

I've come to expect great things from your blog and even from your commenters and am rarely disappointed.

Thank you for the time you put into your posts :)

Gareth Nelson

For some reason it wouldn't let me post this properly, so here's my response:
http://pastebin.ca/1384785

Yumi Murakami

I think you have to understand a bit of the context. The CC essentially evolved from the GPL, and the GPL in turn was a rebellion against the problem of creative people having difficulty accessing capitalism. Essentially, being caught in the dilemma of "I have this idea, and now I can either: a) set up my own distribution and marketing system from scratch, which will cost me a fortune, and probably mean I make a net loss; b) get someone else to distribute and market it, but I'll get a fraction of the value, and they probably won't be interested because they know my only other option is to c) give it away for free, where the distributors and marketeers can hijack it without needing to pay me anything."

The GPL was intended to add another option, of giving something away for free without it being hijacked. I'm pretty sure that many people would have liked to add even more alternative options that would have allowed people to get paid, too, but nobody has managed to work out how to do that yet.

Your fear, that CC ultimately leads to bankruptcy and elimination, is very well grounded. But the opposing fear is that capitalism effectively leads to creative shutdown too, because every new idea must be justified in business terms, and this becomes harder and harder as existing good businesses become stronger. Coca-cola and Pepsi just don't need to sell any new drinks, but if you want to sell yours, you have to compete with them.. good luck.

Prokofy Neva

That's a load of crap, Yumi.

There is absolutely no reason in hell that you couldn't have the advantages of the Internet, with its lack of costs for manufacturing and distribution AND put on top of that *a payment system*.

If CC was REALLY about enabling artists to enter *a market* and *get paid* so they were "accessing capitalism," then they'd have them access capitalism. But they don't. Instead, they have them manufacture socialism, pressuring everybody to give everything away for free.

There wouldn't be any "cost" to having a payment system in terms of manufacturing or distributing costs, which you claim this was "all about". There'd only be the cost of the user who wishes to have the item to put on his website or print out or listen to.

There's no justification for saying you can't have user costs and this prevents "access to capitalism".

No, it's about intrinsically undermining the entire idea of private property, intellectual property as tied to commerce, and capitalism as a system that in fact is free and accessible.

"Nobody managed to work it out" because it was ideologically incompatible.

Capitalism doesn't lead to "creative shutdown". All around, there is creativity despite the costs. There are plenty of alternative soft drinks in the market.

And if you are going to make your arguments, stick to digital markets and don't suddenly switch to real-world commodities to make a false point.

You can always add one more mp3 or blog or book or picture on the Internet without any more cost than your ISP fees, and if that's too high, go the public library or Internet cafe.


Gareth Nelson

Let's try this again:
"You don't need CC to claim copyright"
As you say, this is automatic under the berne convention. Nobody who knows what they're talking about claims otherwise, let alone claims you need to use a creative commons license.

"CC isn't what grants you any rights"
The copyright holder is who grants you the rights. The mechanism they use is a license document that sets out in un-ambigious terms what rights they're giving to you. Of course, they could always write the license themselves from scratch, but unless they're an attorney specialising in copyright law they'll likely make subtle mistakes. Artists, musicians and programmers are NOT attorneys and should if possible turn to an attorney for qualified advice.

"You don't need CC to share"
There's a few points here:
1 - You can still share stuff even if doing so is utterly illegal. Connect to your favourite P2P network or BitTorrent tracker if you want to share ANYTHING in an illegal fashion.
2 - You can only share a copyrighted work LEGALLY if you have permission to do so from the copyright holder.
3 - Copyright holders can be contacted in individual situations to ask for permission, but when the copyright holder wants to encourage sharing, this quickly becomes a burden as everyone must contact them to ask.
4 - The way to solve the problem in point 3 is for the copyright holder to put a notice on the work explaining what is allowed.
5 - Most copyright holders have only a laymen's knowledge of the relevant copyright laws and may make subtle mistakes if they write their own license document from scratch.
6 - Paying an attorney to write your license for you from scratch is expensive
7 - Therefore, it makes sense to use a prewritten license such as the creative commons licenses. You don't NEED to use them, but it makes sense to do so.

"CC in fact discourages the social injunction"
Pretty much every last CC license states that people need to be credited for their work. However, absence of the license on one particular work does not mean that the opposite applies. Absence of a license actually is equivalent to a notice saying "Do not reproduce in any form this work".

"Absence of CC in fact does not hinder sharing, but its presence certainly does hinder sales"
It depends on your business model frankly. Realistically, if your business model is the traditional one of charging per copy and you release the same work that you're trying to charge for under a creative commons license, you probably will see sales drop on the for-pay version. Making money from free (as in freedom) content or software is possible but requires changing from the pay-per-copy model to custom work, support, ransomware or another more sensible model.
As to "absence of CC does not prevent sharing", that's accurate in so far as there's alternatives to a CC license, but you still need some form of license to share someone else's copyrighted work legally.

"The absolute WORST thing that CC does, however, is to undermine commerce"
No, a suitable license undermines the negative effects of copyright law - an artificial construct, nothing relating to real property at all. With the exception of the "no-commerce" CC licenses (which personally I consider to be none-free and refuse to use), none of the CC licenses say "thou shalt not make money from thy work".

Saying that people willingly choosing not to demand a government-granted monopoly are working against capitalism is laughable.

"Once given, Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable"
So are most proprietary EULAs (not all sadly, but most of them). If someone can revoke the license, it's pretty much useless as they can revoke it from you at any time. In some ways this may be worse than not having the license at all, if you're misled into building on top of the licensed content and the original author then revokes the license you have to stop your own work completely. However, if there's no license at all you can say "if I use this it'll be copyright infringement" and avoid it completely.

"Creative Commons recognizes the right, among some of the licenses, of others to take your work and re-release it in modified form for THEIR commercial benefit but it doesn't have a way for you to release it to make YOUR commercial benefit"
You as the copyright holder always have the full set of rights reserved by copyright law. When granting a license to others you only give them some rights but reserve the rest of them. You are never limited by the restrictions you place in the license given to others.

Gareth Nelson

Yumi Murakami - the GPL was created not because of "access to capitalism", it was created because of the need to prevent software from being locked up. If anything, the GPL is much more akin to capitalism than the standard proprietary EULA - nobody is able to use government force to shutdown others who infringe on your monopoly on that particular piece of software.

Creative commons i'm unsure on the ideological basis behind, but i'd put it more in the "open source" camp than the "free software" camp. Both camps are similar in many ways but differ in other quite major ways, and neither from what I can see is "anti-capitalist" per se, even if people delude themselves into thinking that they are.

cube inada

- Copyright holders can be contacted in individual situations to ask for permission, but when the copyright holder wants to encourage sharing, this quickly becomes a burden as everyone must contact them to ask.


THIS is why we have MACHINES.. to work tedious stuff for us... Not for us to work for a few who use machines....!!! duh the internet! whoduh thunk it!

this is the basis for how i licensed Starbase C3 as a networked creative scifi property in 1996... no CC or relgious furver needed at all.:) Just a good idea how to grow a creative product in the networked interactive age.

Prokofy Neva

Everything Gareth says is utter nonsense, because you can write on your website in plain English, please feel free to copy or use my stuff but give me credit or simply put (c) -- and that's all there is to it. Nothing complicated at all. If you think you need something more complicated, it's social media, duh, you put your email and say "write me for permissions for my stuff which I grant for most cases" or whatever. CC as an institution needs to be replaced with people's common sense notices and a system for micropayments. Perhaps we will finally get this on Facebook if SL isn't enough.

Both opensource and free software are deliberate intentions to undermine not only capitalism as a social system but to undermine even the commerce that a social democracy might require and replace it with communistic utopianism.

Creative Communism has NO LICENSE that says "Copy this if you will pay me". NONE. NOT EVEN CONCEIVED. And that is its fatal flaw. COPY THIS IF YOU PAY ME ON PAYPAL. Should have been the easiest thing in the book. Became complexified and hard merely because of ideological hobbles of the commies running it.

Darien Caldwell

Let me try going a little deeper to make it clearer:

Copyright is limited. It runs out, it's not perpetual. Why? Because it was recognized that for society to advance, at some point people had to have the freedom to build on old ideas and advance them, and be able to profit from that.

Now look at Creative Commons. The information is free, and everything based on it must be free, perpetually. Forever. There is no limitation that says 'after x number of years, the idea can then be profited from' as there is with Copyright.

Now do you see the problem with Creative Commons? It locks up ideas with no future recourse to society as a whole. Copyright recognizes the need for this 'unlocking' after a reasonable time has passed for the original creator to profit.

Of course the fact this period of time keeps getting lengthened is another debate, and yes It's a huge issue.

Gareth Nelson

Cube Inada:
" - Copyright holders can be contacted in individual situations to ask for permission, but when the copyright holder wants to encourage sharing, this quickly becomes a burden as everyone must contact them to ask.

THIS is why we have MACHINES.. to work tedious stuff for us... Not for us to work for a few who use machines....!!! duh the internet! whoduh thunk it!"

I'm not sure if i'm right in this one but are you suggesting that we use some kind of automated bot to hand out permission notices to people? If so, it makes much more sense simply to slap the permissions notices onto the work directly.

Prok:
"Everything Gareth says is utter nonsense, because you can write on your website in plain English, please feel free to copy or use my stuff but give me credit or simply put (c) -- and that's all there is to it. Nothing complicated at all. If you think you need something more complicated, it's social media, duh, you put your email and say "write me for permissions for my stuff which I grant for most cases" or whatever. CC as an institution needs to be replaced with people's common sense notices and a system for micropayments. Perhaps we will finally get this on Facebook if SL isn't enough."
You can of course put your own simple and short license on your works, but there's all kinds of fiddly little issues you might miss out on without legal training. I have a fairly decent understanding of copyright law myself but wouldn't dream of drafting a license document for anything serious myself simply because I haven't studied the field of law in depth, only enough to allow me to understand the basics as they apply to my situation.

By the way, you can also write your own will or write your own contracts too, but if possible you should get some proper legal counsel when drafting such documents. I've been known to draft my own contracts at times simply due to not having access to knowledgeable legal counsel, and I accept that this is a risky practice. With copyright licensing I don't have the same risks because knowledgeable attorneys have already produced documents I can use with a high degree of confidence.

"Both opensource and free software are deliberate intentions to undermine not only capitalism as a social system but to undermine even the commerce that a social democracy might require and replace it with communistic utopianism."
Citation needed :)
Free software is deliberately aimed at destroying proprietary software, not capitalism (and before you rant - the 2 are not the same, proprietary software is based on the model of getting government-granted monopolies and charging customers "protection money", not free trade). Open source has essentially no political goals at all in its ideology for the most part, it's based more on the practical and technological advantages than the social advantages.

Neither the free software movement or open source has "undermine commerce" as a function though. There are whole industry sectors devoted to free and open source software and the resulting jobs. Yes, other business models may be undermined by this new competition if it takes off, but nobody said you have a right to be insulated from the market.

"Now look at Creative Commons. The information is free, and everything based on it must be free, perpetually. Forever. There is no limitation that says 'after x number of years, the idea can then be profited from' as there is with Copyright."

CC licenses are dependent upon copyright, so if the copyright on a work expires, any restrictions placed on redistribution of it by a CC license also expire. Not to mention that barring the "no-commercial" licenses (which personally I do take issue with), none of them say you can't profit.

"Now do you see the problem with Creative Commons? It locks up ideas with no future recourse to society as a whole"
It promotes advantages to society as a whole in fact, as opposed to proprietary software which tends to remain locked up essentially forever in terms of the source code. Regardless, no license can override the expiry date set by copyright law.

Prokofy Neva

Darien, that's another excellent hole in CC that I should have pointed out -- thank you! They bang on copyright for having long periods of times, but they themselves ask for eternity, like all utopians. it's like those early adapters in SL who make stuff and released it for free but put it on "no mod" and then they leave SL and you are stuck with their prim-heavy, laggy concoctions that could be modernized with subsequent developments to the platform if they were really truly about freedom.

Gareth isn't a worthy interlocutor because he fisks, literalizes, etc. constantly without being able to hear simple common-sense concepts. It's not worth trying to belabour them with him as he is not capable of perception of common sense matters.

No, nothing expires on CC because it doesn't create that option. If you gave it away for free, or not for resale, you can't say, oh, I'm changing that now, it expired, now you can't have it for free or can't resell it. Duh.

Why is such common sense so elusive?

Gareth Nelson

"No, nothing expires on CC because it doesn't create that option."
It can't create that option because the law does not allow that option to be created. This is very simple, CC does not overrule copyright law in any manner and copyright law is where CC licenses get their force from.

"If you gave it away for free, or not for resale, you can't say, oh, I'm changing that now, it expired, now you can't have it for free or can't resell it. Duh."
You can't revoke an existing license, but when the copyright expires and the work enters the public domain the license is meaningless. The copyright does expire, even if the license doesn't expire.

cube inada

lol.

literally, fire is a tool/medium... just light a match to a forest..... simplicity at its best.

no, i dont have to pay 5 million dollars to google ex employees, or sign away my first born to googles billions of valuation..to offer a system that offers both control , fair usage, and fair profit usage programs for others contributing to my ventures.

and i dont need "CC" or its faddish ways that will only weaken the value of creative ideas and expressions from the individual in a society already out of balance in this way.

there aint nothing common in finding sense or cents any more:)

Yumi Murakami

Darien, CC is still backed by copyright. Once copyright expires, you no longer need a license to copy the work, so the terms of the license - CC or otherwise - become irrelevant.

Prok, sure you can add another mp3 to your site but how do you get people to buy it?

Darien Caldwell

I don't think so. Unless the license explicitly states it expires, it's perpetual. CC is completely seperate from Copyright. It's akin to a EULA, in that you accept it at the time of receipt/download.

Gareth Nelson

Darien - EULAs too become un-enforcible after the copyright expires.

Let me repeat again:
No license can override copyright law, and if copyright law says that copyrights expire that means no license can prevent a work entering the public domain.

If it was possible to use licensing to override the expiry date on copyrighted works don't you think disney and friends would be all over that one instead of lobbying for extending the expiry date in law?

Yumi Murakami

If the work is out of copyright you can just go ahead and violate the license. It isn't a contract you can be sued just for breaching, it's the terms under which the holder gives you permission to do things. And if it's out of copyright you don't need their permission anymore so you can break their rules. (IANAL, TINLA.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ads

  • Google AdSense

Ads

  • Google AdSense
Blog powered by Typepad

Networked Blogs

  • Networked Blogs