February 25, 2005  ·  Lessig

Attention to Mr. Orlowski has apparently waned, so his trash is back. You might not get this from his article, but even though he states “[t]his week Trudeau has turned his attention to the ‘Creative Commons’ project,” in fact, Trudeau does not mention “Creative Commons” at all. Indeed, for anyone who knows anything about what Creative Commons is trying to do, no doubt Thudpucker is a funny character but his views have little to do with mine, or CC‘s.

And as for the project that has “failed to gain much traction,” we were surprised (and pleased) to see this week that the Yahoo linkback search to Creative Commons licenses is now over 10,000,000. If that’s right, then we were at 1,000,000 link backs in a year, 5,000,000 in two, and now over 10,000,000 in 2 1/2. Imagine what we could have done had we only gotten some “traction.”

But the best part of reading this article is that it advertises at the bottom “related articles,” including this. I am astonished that The Register continues to carry this trash (or, for that matter, its author). As I told them then, the article is a lie. Not mistaken, but a lie: a knowing falsehood, published, and published still. Such is the nature of the writer, and apparently the publication.

  • blaze

    Lessig doesn’t understand why people in Europe care about an author’s moral rights, which are inalienable in European law. And because he doesn’t understand, he dismisses it. To an American constitutional lawyer copyright is simply an economic matter,” Thompson told us

    Sounds right to me.

    You know a lot of people are big fans of creative commons. It’s too bad your leftist attitudes are slowly ruining it.

    If you were touting it correctly, it would be a very powerful movement and everyone would be on board. Unfortunately, you’ve got sucked (or maybe you helped create it?) the free culture nightmare.

  • blaze

    Ok, I read some more. The guy *is* an idiot, but still.. even a broken clock is right once. In other words, just because he’s wrong 80% of the time, doesn’t mean the other 20% is wrong.

    Until you get a more balanced view of what you’re trying to accomplish you will continue to attract these nay sayers.

    CC is not the hammer for which the entire world is a nail – it’s a great tool, but so is strong copyright.

  • http://liberalrob.blogspot.com Rob

    Accentuate the positive:

    “So Creative Commons is emblematic of how even the best of the US fails to understand how the rest of the world works.”

    Hey, CC is the “best of the US”! w00t!

    :)

    blaze: you’re hilarious. All someone has to do to meet your standards is be right 20% of the time?

    ROFL

  • Rob

    Mr. Orlowski, you apparently didn’t read Doonesbury very well. The subject of this run of Doonesbury is FILE SHARING (specifically music file sharing), not Creative Commons.

    Oops.

    Your one cited authority, Bill Thompson, said in your linked article that “I would not want an article I had written to be used by a neo-Nazi group in their newsletter, however much I was offered.” Well, to borrow a Douglas Adams formulation, is he likely to write an article that a neo-Nazi group would want to use in their newsletter? And if the neo-Nazi group in question were based in Paraguay, would American copyright protection enable him to prevent it being used? For that matter, would it prevent it being used in the U.S.? I don’t think neo-Nazi groups would be particularly respectful of laws in general; just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

    I think your article does Lawrence Lessig and the Creative Commons project a tremendous disservice.

    Rob Woodard
    Dallas, TX, USA

  • blaze

    The problem is that people often believe the 20% is false, because the other 80% is.

    It’s a logical fallacy.