Advertisements

  • Advertisement
Photobucket
My Photo

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Official Second Life Blog

EngageDigital

« Creative Communism | Main | Why I Believe in God -- and Why You Might, Too! »

April 09, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cfe069e201156f1651f8970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Further on Creative Communism:

Comments

Gareth Nelson

"Copyright exists regardless of what people dream up to put on their site about how they give it away."
Nobody has said otherwise - licensing your work doesn't mean you no longer hold the copyright.

I'm not going to comment on the personal attacks against myself and Dale, but I will ask you please to re-examine this persistent error:

"There is nothing in copyright law that says "this is enacted through the Copyright Licensing Authority with we authorize to be Creative Commons". Nothing of the sort WHATSOEVER."

Copyright law grants authors the right to license their works to others in a conditional manner. The law doesn't care who writes the license document, all it cares about is what it says and that the author was lawfully entitled to apply it to their work as copyright holder. No law mentions my local law firm either, but I can guarantee if I asked them to draw up a license document for me (for a heft fee) that it would be just as enforceable.

It would be a very horrible situation to be in if every license document and every contract required state approval before it was valid. I thought you were pro-democracy?

Should you look at it with a clear mind, you'll find that there is nothing at all relating to communism here, any more than i'm supporting communism by giving a friend a gift for free in RL. I've even performed music live (orange wow festival if you must know - sponsored by the mobile phone company) without being paid a penny. Does that make me a communist because I did something without pay?
No

Communism is state-enforced. Private individuals choosing what form of compensation they desire for their work or even foregoing compensation and doing it for the love of art are not engaging in communism, they are engaging in free trade - a capitalist ideal, not a communist one.

Should it have been a crime for me to have stood on that stage playing my guitar for free, or for me to type code on this keyboard for free? Not in a free society, no. If I want to do something for money, that's my choice, if I do it merely for my own enjoyment or to further other goals that's also my choice.

melponeme_k

I agree with you, as I've stated before in other posts.

A micro-pay system would be perfect for blogs of all types. I love photography and I frequently fan slobber over photographers I love. It wouldn't be a burden to pay a small fee in order to just post a small jpeg from another photographer on a blog post.

Off-Topic, I would like to say that I find the maniacally happy people in all these old communist posters very creepy.

Another off-topic kind of...I notice many of these CC people come from unis in CA. What is going there? I knew a blogger who attended these schools and was a committed communist. Not that this was so awful, but I thought the sneaky ways this person tried to espouse the philosophy was wrong. The blogger's answer to all dissenters was that she was a genius. Oooh-kay.

Dale Innis

Since you're pretty much just saying the same things again, I won't annoy you with the same rebuttals again. :) I will say that I don't think the brow-beating is "self-evident" at all, and your just saying it doesn't make it so.

For what it's worth, I'm not in the "oh, give all of your stuff away and you will get rich!" camp myself; I think there are, at least in the current world, relatively few people who can actually do that. On the other hand, there are lots of cases where someone might want to give away *some* of their stuff for *some* purposes, in a sort of loss-leader or advertising way, and the CC licenses are helpful for that.

And okay maybe this is starting to get long :) but I can't help noting that when you recommend that "a site can just explain that you are welcome to take and copy the content as long as you credit the source and put that it is copyrighted material", that's exactly and only what the CC attribution license does. So...?

Dale Innis

...and I agree with melponeme and Prokofy that a good micro-payment system that would make it easy for people to automatically pay creators small amounts for use of works would be a great thing! I think it's fantastic that SL has this (see "http://daleinnis.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/learning-to-love-drm/"). In RL, I belonged to Bitpass when it existed, and I'm sad that it failed. But I don't see that the CC folks are somehow *obliged* to create one, and are communists because they haven't. After all, neither I nor melponeme nor Prokofy has created one either; does that mean that we're all communists too? :)

Gareth Nelson

"And okay maybe this is starting to get long :) but I can't help noting that when you recommend that "a site can just explain that you are welcome to take and copy the content as long as you credit the source and put that it is copyrighted material", that's exactly and only what the CC attribution license does. So...?"

I think that prok is referring here to a casual (i.e not legalese) statement. Of course, such statements can be written in casual english instead of formal legalese, but personally I prefer to have a formal document that is un-ambiguous in what it says and has all the legal issues I may not be aware of sorted out.

Yumi Murakami

Prokofy, Creative Commons doesn't gain legal authority by issuing licenses. It provides a form license that creators can use to issue a license to users. The person with authority over the license is the creator, not the Creative Commons organisation.

Secondly, copyright on computers and digital material DOES require a license, thanks to a famous (and, in my opinion, really stupid) ruling that a computer making a copy of some data in memory as part of processing it, constitutes a copy under copyright law which you thus need permission to make. So if you view a picture on your screen, uh-oh, it was loaded from the disk into memory, thus making a copy, and then parts of it were copied in the decoding process.. so you need a license. This judgment is the basis of every software EULA in the world, and lots of people hate it and think it's insane and pedantic, but it has stuck because of the huge pockets that support being able to issue EULAs.

The legal basis of CC and all other copyright licenses is that you need a license to use copyrighted material on a computer, and if you breach that license or go beyond its terms, you are have done something you do not have permission to do and thus are guilty under copyright law. If the copyright has expired, you can't be guilty under copyright law, so all the licenses collapse.

The final point is that the reality is that if there is a "pay me now" button there, nobody will pay. Second Life's community, which often does pay small amounts for such things, is not like the world at large or the general world of the web. People will want to know who you are before they consider paying you for anything, and releasing CC material is one way to prove that. Only one way, granted, and you're quite right it won't magically create business for anyone. But just putting up a page that says "pay me here" won't create business for anyone either in the real world, and it also won't create a reputation.

Prokofy Neva

Once again, let me repeat it for about the 10th time:

1. There is nothing in copyright law that says you must register or "be licensed" to claim copyright. Nothing. Nothing in U.S. law. Nothing in the Berne convention. You do not need any license.

2. Furthermore, nothing in copyright law says *you need Creative Commons to do any licensing that you do*. Your offering of rights *is you doing the licensing*. Read this:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html

There is nothing in law that says you must use Creative Commons, or that Creative Commons is "a license" that "implements" copyright law. This subtlety keeps eluding the freaks here.

All you have to do is provide written authorization -- and note that there is also a concept of "implied copyright:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html

If you happen to do this writing through making a silly Creative Commons license, it's not the CC wrapping that grants anything; it's *your own writing* that grants it. If anything, CC takes some things away, and makes for some confusion and conflicts, with some of its license.

The failure to grasp this simple point is, of course, a real gap in the argumentation of anyone defending CC.

Your writing is your writing, and the CC wrapper of it is is meaningless. This "form license" that Yumi speaks of is an unnecessary and misleading wrapper. What matters is your writing. By providing this wrapper, CC is illegitimately implying that it is a licensing authority and that it grants rights. It doesn't.

I'm not interested in talking about software, Yumi, as that is changing the subject. CC doesn't do software, and tells you not to use CC for software. Again, try to grasp the distinction, the case involving software was cited *to invoke a principle about the author's intention when his work is for copy but not sale* NOT to imply anything about the licensing needs of software.

CC attribution icons and wording weaken the authority of the creator, weaken his implicit rights, and creates a blurring of distinctions about what is a licensing authority -- and does this in fact in the name of making a "Creative Commons" (lest we forget the leftist critique, which is apt). No one needs it to do this. It is not elected or appointed. It is not legitimate. It is a wrapping. It is not wanted as it erodes copyright.

Indeed, CC *are* communists for deliberately refusing to create a payments system OR a payments license that could be used with ANY payments system and indeed that does constitute proof that they have only nefarious ends to destroy copyright and IP.

Don't use CC licenses, kids. They are unnecessary, and they may harm you -- look at what happened in the Virgin Mobile case, in which issues of privacy, IP, compensation, misleading licensing from CC all come into play -- and we will see more of this, surely.

As for communism in California schools, hmmm, I'm not sure if that is true, although of course the Berserkeley campus is famous for being a hotbed of leftism. I suppose the easyness with which colleges can accredit themselves in California could account for some of this, but I think it's all part of the "California Ideology" I've referenced many times before, the technocommunism that has elements of anarchal capitalism and libertarian extropianism and everything else thrown in, but ultimately functions like communism. It's about the workers (coders) seizing the means of production (the Internet) and declaring everything "liberated" -- and now we see the results -- a Mao-style destructive Cultural Revolution.

The idea that this communism "doesn't come from the state" doesn't make it "not communism" because what they are doing is in fact setting up a "state-within-a-state" (like the old KGB) or a kind of "parallel authority" with themselves as the "avant-garde" in charge. They function like a state and have state ambitions. Communism doesn't require a state to enforce it; non-state actors and movements espouse and implement communism all the time and often resort to murder to get their way.

Yumi is once again fearful, paranoid, and reluctant to deal with commerce that has "burned" her and about which she is terribly pessimistic.

Make an easy way to pay, people pay. Put this on a big trustworthy broker site, like ebay does with used stuff, like amazon does with used books, like etsy.com does with handicrafts, and you will win. Nobody has yet tried a pay-me photography site precisely because ideologically-driven Flickr is in the way of this happening, as is Creative Commons, both of them actively, aggressively discouraging people from getting pay for their work through cultural diktat.

Prokofy Neva

Ultimately, the evil that Creative Commons does -- a great, communist, collectivizing evil -- is *takes away the licensing authority inherent in the individual himself to grant a license* and misleading put that authority into "Creative Commons and the Creative Commons license".

Licensing and licenses come from *individual creators*. They decide by writing and passing on their instructions.

By seemingly being an "easy template" in fact CC erodes that distinction of the individual who must do the issuing of the licenses. CC starts by pretending it is "helping individuals with a template" (something that its fanboyz can invoke endlessly) but ends by *appearing to be the licensing authority, which it is not*.

The individual is the licensing authority; you do not need a license to claim copyright, and when any license to authorize use is made, *it is made by an individual's act* -- the CC is a misleading and destructive wrapper.

In time, as more and more people realize they have been hoodwinked by CC, it will have less use. Of course, its founders know that at some level, which is why they are rushing to "interationalize" it with i-Commons and force the use on governments from some "international" platform.

cube inada

"I'm a Lawrence from Berkeley and I'm NOT a CC."

-apologies to Microsoft's adfolk(who were paid)

c3
larryr

Prokofy Neva

I think it has to be said again, because I really don't want to be wasting my time on trying to argue with Gareth, given his condition of Aspberger's. While invoking someone's disability may be considered "unfair play" on a forums, it has to be done precisely because Gareth continues daily to pepper this blog with contentious and long and repeated comments that don't spring from any desire of good will to debate, that don't spring from some actual philosophical process, but spring from a mechanized mind functioning, over which certain emotional dependencies have been laid (the need to feel superior, the need to play gotcha, etc.) It means, basically, you can never have a normal conversation -- so you shouldn't try. Usually, I default to ignoring Gareth, as it is really the only way to cope with his syndrome without having to suffer from it, too. I refuse to be an unwilling victim. I thought it was useful to explicate this once again as people, especially new readers, tend to forget what's going on here.

Aspberger's is variously described as a "disease," something its sufferers don't wish it to be called, or a "syndrome" or even "a gift".

But whatever you wish to label it, the chief feature of it is literalism -- taking things very, very literally and obsessively so.

A good example, which I'll expose here as a sample to make the point, is as follows:

"Copyright law grants authors the right to license their works to others in a conditional manner. The law doesn't care who writes the license document, all it cares about is what it says and that the author was lawfully entitled to apply it to their work as copyright holder. No law mentions my local law firm either, but I can guarantee if I asked them to draw up a license document for me (for a heft fee) that it would be just as enforceable."

Here we see how the literalist, obsessive mind flows. God knows why this literalist, obsessive, hectoring lecture has to be made about how "no law" mentions lawyers or how "the law doesn't care" when that's what I have essentially said in two posts and numerous comments here already: the law does not require any licensing authority; CC is not that licensing authority. How many times does it need to be said? Why this obsessive lecture that goes down an unnecessary sidetrack reiterating what is already obvious?

I've made the point that you don't need CC to license your work. YOU are the one who authorizes it. Not the lawyer. Not CC. Not anybody. If you get a lawyer to draft it more carefully, that's great, but it's YOU who possess the copyright. The lawyer no more possesses the license than CC does -- YOU do. The lawyer doesn't issue a "license" to put on your website saying "Licensed by Nasty, Brutish and Short" even though as a lawyer, he is an officer of the court -- a state-recognized function -- who has passed the bar -- a state-recognized authority -- which is unlike anything that CC resembles remotely as a non-profit activist group issuing tokens in a game. Lawyers DO NOT give you a license token for your website; yet CC *does*. That should be your first red flag there!

The law office performs a service and helps you license your work and draft and finalize a license YOU write with YOUR intentions. It doesn't erode your rights as an individual CC does, because it takes away the individual and puts him in a collective -- communism. CC pretends it offers a service too -- but then duplicitously goes farther than your lawyer would ever, ever go even as an officer of the court.

>It would be a very horrible situation to be in if every license document and every contract required state approval before it was valid. I thought you were pro-democracy?

See, this is where you can see someone suffering as Gareth does really goes off the rails, and you realize -- it's just not worth trying to argue with him because you will never, ever get through the veil of literalism which in turn has promopted a fail of cynical nastiness suspecting everyone else who uses common sense of being hypocrites. Common sense is precisely what is missing from Aspberger's: common sense is the ability to use pragmatism to extram the useful from the abstract, and not literalize it to death.

My affirmation of the individual's right to his license -- his copyright, and himself as the dispensing authority -- and my exposure of the collectivizing and insidious role of CC in eroding and taking away this right makes me pro-democracy, not anti-democracy.

I'm the one who just explained that the state is NOT NEEDED to validate copyright. The state does not "validate" the work of each and every lawyer helping each and every person draft a license because it has ALREADY PRE-VALIDATED IT IN THE LAW ITSELF. REGISTRATION IS NOT NEEDED. That's what the Berne convention and U.S. law IS ABOUT. Why does this need constant repeating? Because literalists keep going off the rails with it.

Going to a lawyer doesn't mean that lawyer somehow authorizes you, as an officer of the court. I haven't said that, it's not true, and implying that I've said it is diseased; indeed, going off on this tangent as some kind of argument against my critique of CC only reinforces my very points about CC! No, the lawyer merely provides the service of putting your intentions into legalese. You could say CC does this too -- but that would be to spin the sinister CC intent in a benign way which merely sugarcoats the communism. CC could limit iself to merely this service, like a lawyer BUT IT DOES NOT.

CC doesn't provide a service and walk away. Instead, CC says it "issues a license" that you can copy as an icon and put on your site. It doesn't just suggest language, it presses you into a collective that is making "a common culture" that is a "free culture". It's a cult, a movement, a shill.

>Should you look at it with a clear mind, you'll find that there is nothing at all relating to communism here, any more than i'm supporting communism by giving a friend a gift for free in RL. I've even performed music live (orange wow festival if you must know - sponsored by the mobile phone company) without being paid a penny. Does that make me a communist because I did something without pay?
No

This is typical of the literalist tangent that the sufferer goes as a mechanical journey, overlaid with emotional indignation and superiority.

What on earth does playing music for free have to do with communism? Nothing. Nothing I've said implies that people who wish to play music for free or make art works for free for their friends in Second Life "are communists". That's a patent absurdity.

It isn't the act of doing things for free that makes you a communist.

What *does* make for communism is trying to make a system that imposes a "license" falsely, presses you into a collective, and *discourages you from making money from your work*.

It's the discouraging of commerce that is the communism, not the selfless acts of artists. In fact, that's so typical of how communism works, enlisting the voluntarism of people offered in good faith, capitalizing on their wish to do good and do well, and making off with it into a sinister collective from which later they cannot become free (Virgin Mobile case).

I'm moving on from this thread now unless somebody sensible comes along, especially a real copyright lawyer.

Sean Williams

Oh for the love of ...

Gareth, Dale, Yumi ... Don't bother even trying to use logic, common sense, direct quotes, solid proof ... anything at all really. Prokofy does not listen to anyone BUT Prokofy.

If something comes up that matches Prokofy's views, it is treated as pure fact and one which no amount of evidence to the contrary can shake.

Prokofy refuses to provide proof when another person demands it and indeed turns right around and attempts to place the burden of proof on everyone else.

All of that said ...

If the intention of an individual who has created an artwork (of any type, including written work), created/modified a bit of software or created a brand new/modified an existing product is to make money (meaning their primary reason for doing so was monetary gain) then - just like those in the medical profession - they are doing so for the WRONG reasons.

There ARE some exceptions to this ... but not very many at all. Your heart has to be in your work for it to be quality ... not your wallet.

If you can make a living off of your creations - that's all fine and dandy.

NO ONE should be forced to give away their work if they do not want to .... however they should not be forced to SELL it either.

Without SOME form of 'license', Copyright is about as useful as an ulcer. If something casual, written up by the person who owns the work, is what the individual is comfortable with .... that is what they'll use. If some other method is their cup of tea NO ONE has the right to tell them which method they should use. We have the right to advise - that is all.

Prokofy Neva

cube, are you saying that somehow Microsoft was involved in funding Comrade Larry to do CC ads? I keep finding references in the leftist critique of CC about the use of corporate ads to promote it. What was this, exactly?

Darien Caldwell

There is one question I really haven't seen anyone address, so let me put it out there:

If people want to share their resource, like CC people say they do, and they don't want to be paid for it, like CC people say they don't, Then why don't you just release it into the public domain?

I can really only think of one reason:

"I don't want people making money off my idea, but I'm too lazy/ignorant to make money off it myself. So let me make sure others can't either. I don't want someone getting credit for my idea should they use it, even though I can't see a way to use it myself."

This is the problem with CC, it's just a self-centered stab at the world by frustrated creatives. It's a big FU to the world by people who can't be bothered to develop and market their ideas, but want to get 'known' while at the same time not contributing anything to society.

If you have an idea, and don't want to spend the time turning it into something marketable, useful and viable, give it to someone who can, or keep it to yourself. Someone else will have the same idea, eventually. But tying it up in CC means it's lost to everyone.

Yumi Murakami

Um.. There are several for-pay photo libraries online.

And it isn't just software that needs a license. The same terms can and have been applied to DVDs - because the data on the DVD is copied to memory to be decompressed. (That's the legal weight behind DVD regional lockout.) The same terms can apply to an online book, an MP3 file, even just a piece of text like this.

Gareth Nelson

"There is nothing in copyright law that says you must register or "be licensed" to claim copyright. Nothing. Nothing in U.S. law. Nothing in the Berne convention. You do not need any license."
Nobody is claiming otherwise, why do you keep on repeating this strawman? CC licenses are licenses for USERS, not authors.

"If you happen to do this writing through making a silly Creative Commons license, it's not the CC wrapping that grants anything; it's *your own writing* that grants it"

That is precisely the point myself and Dale have been repeating to you.

"Your writing is your writing, and the CC wrapper of it is is meaningless."
No, the "CC wrapper" is backed by law, did you read the court verdicts that I linked in the other post?

"CC attribution icons and wording weaken the authority of the creator, weaken his implicit rights, and creates a blurring of distinctions about what is a licensing authority"
The authority of the creator is where the power of the license comes from.

"Don't use CC licenses, kids. They are unnecessary, and they may harm you -- look at what happened in the Virgin Mobile case, in which issues of privacy, IP, compensation, misleading licensing from CC all come into play -- and we will see more of this, surely."
The only real issue in this one was invasion of privacy, the model had not consented to her image being used. The photographer had consented to his work being used though, if he did not understand the terms of the license (even when they're explained in both very simple terms AND the full legal code) then he shouldn't have agreed to it.

"Communism doesn't require a state to enforce it; non-state actors and movements espouse and implement communism all the time and often resort to murder to get their way."
Reminds me of you accusing me of supporting a "one world government"....

So, tell me prok - was I supporting communism when I stood on stage playing my guitar without being paid? I know you consider me a communist for typing code on my keyboard for free, so presumably the same applies to live music too? That's a pretty twisted view of what capitalism (i.e the free market) means if you believe that it's somehow not a free market if people decide of their own free will to do something.

Gareth Nelson

"Ultimately, the evil that Creative Commons does -- a great, communist, collectivizing evil -- is *takes away the licensing authority inherent in the individual himself to grant a license* and misleading put that authority into "Creative Commons and the Creative Commons license"."

Nothing at all stops you from hiring your own lawyer or writing a license yourself from scratch simply because CC exists. If the CC licenses express your wishes accurately, use them. If not, don't use them.

Gareth Nelson

"I think it has to be said again, because I really don't want to be wasting my time on trying to argue with Gareth, given his condition of Aspberger's"
Putting aside whether or not you consider autism a disability, yes that is low - but expected from you.

Dale Innis

Prokofy, your points (1) and (2) above, and the paragraphs after them:

"" There is nothing in law that says you must use Creative Commons, or that Creative Commons is "a license" that "implements" copyright law. ...

All you have to do is provide written authorization -- and note that there is also a concept of "implied copyright:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html ""

are correct! And no one here has been denying them! The mystery is why you keep repeating them as though they somehow reflected negatively on the CC licenses and the CC organization.

The main error that you make there is in the sentence that I elided: "This subtlety keeps eluding the freaks here." This incorrectly implies that someone here has been claiming otherwise, and claiming that CC somehow creates copyright law, or that you have to be registered or licensed with CC in order to have copyright rights. I didn't see anyone claim that, and of course they would be wrong if they had. But no one has, at least not in these comment threads.

(Well, okay, there is one sense in which a CC license is an implementation of a piece of copyright law, at least in the US: in the passage of the US legal code that Gareth quotes, the law explicitly provides for creators to grant rights to others via written instruments. In that the CC licenses are written instruments that do that, you could say that the CC licenses are implementations of that provision of the copyright law. But then so is any other written instrument that grants rights, so CC is nothing special in that regard; even me writing "go ahead and use this for anything you want" is something that "implements copyright law" in that sense (albeit not very well).)

So anyway, everyone that I've seen post here has freely granted that your (1) and (2) are correct. It's very odd that you keep restating them as if you were responding to someone who was denying them: no one is!

Instead you're taking this utterly bizarre incorrect account of what CC is and does (that it somehow creates copyright, etc), accusing people (the CC folks, the freak and geeks and other people that annoy you) of somehow spreading it or promoting it or pretending that it's true, and concluding that they must therefore be communist scum intent on destroying civilization. But no one is actually doing that!

As far as I can tell the idea that nothing without a CC license on it is copyrighted, or that you have to register with Creative Commons in order to have copyright, is an idea that you came up with yourself, for reasons I can't fathom. If you dislike it (and you probably should, since it's wrong) just throw it away; you're the only one who seems to have a copy.

I'm also curious about how you think the existence of Flickr and its use of CC licenses is getting in the way of someone setting up a similar site with a micropayment system that lets people get paid for use of their work. Since that's a feature that flickr doesn't have, Capitalism 101 tells us that if people want it, a competitor to flickr that has it should do well. How does flickr's very existence keep this from happening? Normally this is called "competition", and we capitalists are in favor of it.

Maybe that can be your next weblog posting. :)

cube inada

lol. ass burgers for all:)

MS? no no.. not that i know of..lol

I was "literally" mimicking the current Microsoft "IM A PC" advertising campaign and mixxing in the blogs content....

My name is "Lawrence" -- rl birth certificate-- and I live in bezerkeley as well as that other guy... but im NOT a CC ;)

Unlike CC Lawrence, this Lawrence has spent 25 years as a professional getting paid for creative work and ideas. But that other larry doesnt want anyone to have other ideas than his it seems. Starve them out seems to be his belief. Let them eat Bit's.

anyhow--

Sean....youre whole "heart=Art" thing?...ugh. just dumb and silly.

Prokofy Neva

Does Dale perhaps suffer from Aspberger's, too? Other than a rabig case of assholery, which has caused him to send not one, but two emails to me telling me that there's a paragraph repeated in the post here. Like...that matters? Like...it needs to be told me in email...and twice? So typically asshole Dale!

Garth and Dale both have spent hours writing posts trying to infuse Creative Commons with significance and legitimacy, for their own rabid ideological reasons, and tried to claim it is "innocent," but their points about its "legitimacy" are all borrowed from the law itself which says *ANY* written authorization would be such a "license" -- but "licensing authority" is granted TO THE INDIVIDUAL not to any other entity.

Creative Commons is *wrapping* as I've said now over and over again. MISLEADING and MALICIOUSLY ADVERTISED WRAPPING.

No one needs it.

It is not a license.

Licenses don't need to be made through it.

What it offers is neither protection from theft nor ability to be paid, but merely a cultural token to play a game with of "let's have a utopian public commons where all the hippies share everything". That's all.

It's not just that I've "concocted" some view of CC in this manner -- millions of photographers, artists, designers opt NOT to use CC precisely because they see no advantage, find it misleading, find it even confusing, and find that ultimately it takes their rights away to give the flexibility they'd like.

Almost nobody in SL uses CC. It's not needed.

Worse, it prohibits them from selling their works if they use the CC license, even if it authorizes takers of their work to profit (pretty fucked up, that).

Flickr is part of the communist conspiracy -- yes, indeed. It's a displacement of the space that *could* be occupied by a viable sales mechanism that respected copyright and encouraged the connection between copyright and commerce.

It's so obvious how technocommunism, a digital form of virulent communism, invades the space of organic relations that the Internet was a tool to express, and then strips them all of value, filling each cell like a cancer, displacing it, and ultimately killing cancer.

When you look at the hollowed-out ex-value of newspapers online caused by Google, when you see all the people who lost income from sales of original content they might have had, opening themselves up even to things like exploitation by Virgin Mobile, you can see how starkly communism kills. This isn't just some overheated conspiratorial insanity -- it's a level-headed, sober report about what really happened with the devasting Maoist-style Cultural Revolution that has occurred on the Internet -- which literally sent all the intellectuals and artists to the countryside to bring in the harvest -- the harvest of death.

The fucked-up utopian hippie view that Sean Williams exemplifies here -- that there is something evil and impure about selling art and engaging in commerce with IP -- is in fact the default communist and extremist deadly attitude of the founders of CC and many of their users. It's good to see it in Nature, so to speak, in its rabid and extreme form, so that freaks like Dale and Gareth can see what in fact lies behind the facade -- an extremism they might not even claim for themselves, as Gareth sells stuff on his own, and Dale presumably sells stuff through IBM. But an extremism that is deadly, draining art of all its commercial potential needed to sustain the human being, the artist, and collectivizing art as if it is communist property.

Here again is the insidious prevarication -- that Dale is "agreeing" with me when in fact he is quick to start setting up duplicitous deceptions:

"Well, okay, there is one sense in which a CC license is an implementation of a piece of copyright law, at least in the US: in the passage of the US legal code that Gareth quotes, the law explicitly provides for creators to grant rights to others via written instruments. In that the CC licenses are written instruments that do that, you could say that the CC licenses are implementations of that provision of the copyright law."

No, no, no.

Let's go over it again, shall we?

CC is not an implementation of copyright law.

CC is not an implementation of copyright law.

CC is not an implementation of copyright law.

An artist's USE OF CC (instead of his own writing) is what gives effect to copyright law; *his use* is the implementation, not *the thing itself*. That's where the geeky, literalist confusion keeps occuring.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

CC has no legitimacy in and of itself; it has no intrinsic value; it is not a legal instrument.

*The artist's own decision to fill out this ready-made template and his use of it is what is legal, not the template itself.*

The Hammerhill people who sell paper for printers don't describe their paper as "implementing copyright law". That would be absurd. A legal office doesn't claim its legal stationary "implements copyright law" or indeed that even their services "implement copyright law". These are just tools used for *the author's own implementation* of law that starts with intrinsic recognition of their rights.

CC is nothing more than a piece of paper on the Internet in the form of a ready-made template. But it rapidly goes behind that by implying and insinuating that it is a "legal instrument" (as Dale falsely claims it is) and that in fact is "issues licenses".

On the website at creativecommon.org, here's what the commies claim falsely:

"The following describes each of the six main licenses offered."

They claim to OFFER licenses. But they do not have that authority. Furthermore, licenses ARE NOT NEEDED. And finally, *the author himself licenses himself to authorize and uses whatever means he needs, website, paper, typewriter, lawyer, CC, to articulate that intent".

These subtleties keep escaping the literalist geeky mind, but I think it's worth repeating here for others in doubt.

Sean Williams

Hate to break it to you cube but if your heart isn't in what you do ... you're not giving it everything you have and chances are you're quite unhappy on some level as well.

Idealistic? Sure.

Dumb and silly? Nope.

Sean Williams

"The fucked-up utopian hippie view that Sean Williams exemplifies here -- that there is something evil and impure about selling art and engaging in commerce with IP "

Do yourself a favor Prokofy and CEASE PROJECTING YOUR BULLSHIT ONTO OTHERS. find EXACTLY where I have made a statement that DIRECTLY states your quite incorrect interpenetration of my words.

Oh wait ... you cannot because IT DOESN'T EXIST!

I've got NO problem with artists seeking to be paid. I DO have a problem with artists whose SOLE INTENTION is to net some sort of gain.

Would you let a surgeon whose only intention is to net a nice paycheck and whose only concern is said paycheck do ANYTHING that you may need done?

I'd personally rather have someone whose prime concern is the health and safety of his/her patients and whose primary intention is seeing that they get the best care they can, work on me.

In a similar context, I'm not going to have a picture taken of my family by someone who is only in it for the money, nor would I ask a painter who sees only dollar signs to paint ANYTHING at all.

I'll pay them for their services .... but I'm not going to hire someone who is more concerned with money than with their work.

Dale Innis

You got that note twice, Prokofy? gmail assures me that I only sent it once. :)

"It is not a license."

Well, now you're getting into what even I would call literalism. It's true that when someone takes one of the forms of words that the CC folks offer and posts something in public and associates it with that form of words, no license in the legal sense has been granted until that posting and association occurs. Just having the form of words sitting on the CC website not associated with a particular work does not constitute a license in this sense.

On the other hand, it's incredibly common everywhere, completely outside the issue of CC, to call a form of words that can be used to grant a license, "a license". And there's nothing in the least bit misleading about doing so. (In fact you do so yourself more than once in this very comment thread.)

"Worse, it prohibits them from selling their works if they use the CC license": there you're just wrong. None of the CC licenses (or, if you prefer, the "CC sample documents that can be used to create licenses"), as far as I can tell, prohibit the creator from selling their works. I gave a bunch of examples above of how a creator can perfectly plausibly use a CC form of words :) to grant a right to use his work in one way for free, and still charge for other uses. So I don't know what you mean by this; I imagine you're just making stuff up again. (Have you actually read any of the CC licenses? You might find it interesting.)

"These subtleties keep escaping the literalist geeky mind": it's not the geeks who are being literalist this time!

On the "implementation" thing, I will give the technical literalist version if that will make you happier: if I take one of the forms of words that the CC folks offer, and use it to grant someone a license to use one of my works in certain ways under certain circumstances, I am by that action implementing one of the provisions of the copyright law. Is that better? I hope so. :)

Gareth Nelson

"They claim to OFFER licenses. But they do not have that authority."

Anyone has the authority to offer licenses for the general public to use. A license is just a document specifying the terms under which a copyrighted work can be used, and anyone can write such a document and offer it to the public. I could write one, you could write one - basically anyone who knows the english language can write a license.

Whether or not that license is clear and un-ambigious is another issue. If you want to apply a license to anything serious then it'd be foolish to use one written by me for example as I specialise in software, not law. It's perfectly legitimate for a bunch of lawyers to write these documents and offer them for public use though, and i'd say rather a good thing.

"Furthermore, licenses ARE NOT NEEDED"
If you want to copy someone else's copyrighted work, you need a license. The license is just their permission to use the work. What you're saying resolves to "permission from the copyright holder isn't needed", a position totally at odds with your expressed view and the reality of the legal system.

You keep on talking as if the license is somehow a license that gives rights to the copyright holder. That isn't true, the license is granted BY the copyright holder to others as you keep repeating yourself.

By this point i'm not really sure what you're objecting to. You seem to keep saying "you don't need to use a CC license" and "the individual has the authority to grant a license" - both of which are true points that I haven't seen anyone disagree with.

So, if it isn't clear:
Creative Commons (the organisation) does not grant licenses to copyrighted works and do not claim to. They offer documents that authors can choose to use for their copyrighted works. If you violate the license terms, you lose the permission and thus are guilty of copyright infringement. The author of the work then can file a lawsuit, not CC. CC do not have standing to file such a lawsuit, though they may in some cases help authors with legal counsel potentially (i'm not sure on this one, I do know the free software foundation have at times offered assistance for GPL infringements on software where they don't own the copyright).

So, what do you object to?
Do you object to the idea of giving your work away for free? (You already claimed you don't)
Do you object to the idea of someone using a copyright license that they didn't write from scratch or pay a lawyer to write for them?
Do you object to the very concept of a copyright license?

What is it?

cube inada

The word is "DESIGNERS" and the words are "COMMERCIAL ARTISTS" and I really won't waist time or "repeating" what these folks are about for blog comment fodder as to their value or heart.

I just don't have to.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Advertisements

  • Advertisement

Advertisements

  • Advertisement
Blog powered by Typepad

Networked Blogs

  • Networked Blogs