And things like these make me seriously consider making a definite fork of Wikipedia that:
- contains no nonfree content, not even quotes
- only contains public domain works if the status can be applied worldwide (I'm looking at you, Mexico!)
- contains no trademarks, not even Wikipedia's just in case; it would be renamed to "Librepedia: the truly free encyclopedia" and thus can be truly be used freely by anyone
Where an original indie artist will create a work - it gets picked up free by a corporate, who release a movie or song -- then 3 months later the original artist is receiving DMCA takedowns and cease & desist orders for using the work which they actually own!
If the artist chooses Share-Alike, then its a fault of the corporation, not of the artist. Now, if we talk about CC-BY-only artwork, the situation grows grimmer.
Furthermore there is the argument that by offering ND-NC you are keeping the possibility of widespread adoption of Creative Commons vs (C)opyright. If more people default to specifying (CC) rather than a (C), Creative Commons actually wins more legitimacy and presents creators with a choice when specifying copyright rather than going with the typical restriction (many creators are still not even aware of CC).
I've heard about this argument. Promoting half-freed licenses is a short-lived solution. Educating artists about the benefits of permitting commercial use and derivative works, on the other side, is better in the long run for the free culture community and the world as a whole.
What they seem to advocating is the equivalent of BSD/Apache license for creative works - maybe they should be looking to the GPL and be advocating that the work can be put to commercial use, but that any derivative should release the derivative 'elements' back to the community for remixing.
Exactly! Copyleft licenses are better than permissive licenses in that regard, because they require all derivatives to be free-as-in-freedom as well.
Why NC/ND are unneeded (my own crosspost from the Reddit topic)
NC and ND are unneeded if proper education is taken to promote proper copyleft. Here are the main reasons to remove them, from my perspective:
- Non-commercial restrictions come from the confussion between copyrighted usage and commercial usage. There are plenty of non-copyrighted but commercial usages: playing a song in an event with entry fee, placing it in an ad-driven blog, etcetera. Share-alike licenses deal with the copyrighted usages, and the artist is free to cash with their work even if others do.
- Non-derivative restrictions come from the fear of having a person's opinion distorted. Attribution and moral rights deal with that; derivatives must be clearly labeled as such.
As a matter of fact, I'm writing an article on why the artists should stop fearing commercial use and derivatives. Yes, Lessig and Stallman, I'm talking about you both.
Somebody who speaks Japanese should tell him about Creative Commons. It seems that Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) is what he's wanting in this case. Also, it would be much safer to use in copyleft works. In other news, I would have never thought that Black Jack would be free-as-in-freedom in this century.
Which means that, given the longest copyright terms in the world (currently Mexico, 100 years after death), we'll have to wait *73 more years* until Sita Sings the Blues is truly free-as-in-freedom.
OK, the initial costs are actually rather large. But, on the large scale, the costs are lower than physical alternatives, require much less resources to maintain, and have an extremely larger deployment area thanks to the Internet. In short, it may not be exactly zero, but it's very, very, VERY cheap compared with alternatives.
A medium-quality microphone: $100. A good (GNU+)Linux distribution: Almost free if downloaded. A decent computer: Less than $1500. Internet and CDs: Under $20. Using sites like Jamendo, Libre.FM or the Internet Archive to host the songs: Almost free for both sides. Promoting the album: Word-of-mouth is free, ads are really cheap (under $10 per month), and social networking does wonders. All in all, almost anyone can make a successful album with a month's salary. And the cost can be easily recovered (and even multiplied) if those meager costs are crowdfunded beforehand!
If the name Pirate Party rubs them the wrong way, why don't they use an alternate name? The Communist Party did it all the time. What about, let's say, the Kopimi Party?
Fine, more music free to download! But still, there is no word on whether this album will be free to share and remix. Could someone tell me whether Palmer intends to embrace copyleft or not?
What about CCMixter? It's pretty much exactly what he talks about: someone uploads the song (with or without stems), someone else remixes it, and the remix links back to the original stems. It's awesome and I've used it more than once.
And that's why I try to read works by authors dead before January 1st, 1912 (since the longest copyright term in Earth is life+100 years - better safe than sorry). Or else, works by authors that *continually* use CC-BY-SA or "higher".
If I only knew how to speak Polish, the first thing I'd do would be to translate the books and host them in Wikimedia Commons, then adapt them to my country, then print some and convince some teachers to use it. All thanks to the CC-BY license.
As a matter of fact, I offered to translate Your Face Is A Saxophone to Spanish. The subs are ready and the dubs (yes, the dubs!) are in casting phase. If this series weren't free to translate, who knows whether someone would have tried to subtitle it, let alone dub it.
On the post: Wikitravel And Wikimedia Are In A Legal Battle... But Not Over Creative Commons
Re: Re: We need a Librepedia
On the post: Wikitravel And Wikimedia Are In A Legal Battle... But Not Over Creative Commons
We need a Librepedia
- contains no nonfree content, not even quotes
- only contains public domain works if the status can be applied worldwide (I'm looking at you, Mexico!)
- contains no trademarks, not even Wikipedia's just in case; it would be renamed to "Librepedia: the truly free encyclopedia" and thus can be truly be used freely by anyone
On the post: Big Banks Finally Punishing Employees For Fraud... Like The Call Center Guy Who Used A Fake Dime 50 Years Ago
Disproportionate Retribution
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Re: Couple of objections...
If the artist chooses Share-Alike, then its a fault of the corporation, not of the artist. Now, if we talk about CC-BY-only artwork, the situation grows grimmer.
I've heard about this argument. Promoting half-freed licenses is a short-lived solution. Educating artists about the benefits of permitting commercial use and derivative works, on the other side, is better in the long run for the free culture community and the world as a whole.
Exactly! Copyleft licenses are better than permissive licenses in that regard, because they require all derivatives to be free-as-in-freedom as well.
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Why NC/ND are unneeded (my own crosspost from the Reddit topic)
- Non-commercial restrictions come from the confussion between copyrighted usage and commercial usage. There are plenty of non-copyrighted but commercial usages: playing a song in an event with entry fee, placing it in an ad-driven blog, etcetera. Share-alike licenses deal with the copyrighted usages, and the artist is free to cash with their work even if others do.
- Non-derivative restrictions come from the fear of having a person's opinion distorted. Attribution and moral rights deal with that; derivatives must be clearly labeled as such.
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Re:
On the post: Award-Winning Manga Author Opens Up His Work To Be Used By 'Anyone, Anywhere, For Anything,' Royalty-Free
What about CC-BY?
On the post: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
Re: This.
On the post: The Warehousing And Delivery Of Digital Goods? Nearly Free, Pretty Easy, Mostly Trivial
Re: Re: Approaches zero
On the post: The Warehousing And Delivery Of Digital Goods? Nearly Free, Pretty Easy, Mostly Trivial
Re:
On the post: Taiwan Denies Use Of 'Pirate Party' Name Because People Might Think They're Actual Sea-Faring Pirates
What about Kopimi Party?
On the post: Amanda Palmer Raises $1.2 Million On Kickstarter, And The Crowd Goes Wild
Copyleft or it didn't happen
On the post: Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician
What about CCMixter?
On the post: Bonus Sunday Post: Help Dan Bull Get His New Freely Distributed Song On The Charts
On the post: Too Much Copyright: This Generation's Prohibition
Better safe than sorry
On the post: Polish Government Funding 'Full Set Of Educational Materials' Available Under CC-BY
If I only knew Polish...
On the post: Why The 'Missing 20th Century' Of Books Is Even Worse Than It Seems
Fact: I wrote about a similar topic yesterday
On the post: Plankhead Discovers The Most Effective Anti-Piracy Technique: Public Domain Dedications
Fact: I offered to translate YFIAS to Spanish
On the post: Free 3D-Printable Kit To Connect Different Toy Construction Sets Released -- But Partially Blocked Due To Patents
Re: Re: FUCK?