• Chris

    How is it possible to spread CC to countries like China (in yellow) with essentially no enforcement of copyright/trademark/patent laws?

    I guess you could only hope that the CC mark beomes really trendy for handbags, wallets, DVDs, etc. That way Chinese factories will start knocking them off and spreading the word :)

  • http://recently.rainweb.net ~bc

    I believe that Greenland is still a dependency of Denmark, ergo, you may have a large swath to switch from red to yellow (gee, I think, it’s hard to see little ole’ Denmark from this distance)…

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Chris said:

    How is it possible to spread CC to countries like China (in yellow) with essentially no enforcement of copyright/trademark/patent laws?

    If I’m not mistaken, I think this map just represents established headquarters of communication. Enforcement is a different issue. I’d be interested to hear more on what a “launched project” entails.

  • Henri Laupmaa

    You could add Estonia to the yellow group. We have the promotional site up, some articles in press and first version translated. We’ll send the reverse-translated version to Christiane soon.

    Keep up the good work!

    http://creativecommons.galerii.ee

  • Julia

    Hi Lessig, I am brazillian and I have just read your interview at “Super Interessante” magazine. I found your ideas about internet and culture amazing.
    Congratulations!
    Thru that map, though, I can see we still have a lot of work to do. :)

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/halashao/ Fermi

    Well..I wonder the correctness of this so-called map.
    A simple but vital mistake is that Hainan Province of China has been counted as one country(or a region?), it has a red color filled which is different to the rest part of China…

    Hainan is NOT Taiwan, there is no dispute of whether Hainan is part of China at all…

    Well…at least the statistic is not accurate…

  • icecow

    Hi Lessig,

    Podcasting has been emerging quickly. There are blogs and other writings that are worthy to be read and redistributed in a spoken podcast form. I have just begun to think about the matter. My inital response is that a new type of Creative Commons license could be made that specifies (perhaps by a symbol visible in a blog entry) that podcasters have permission to read and podcast the blog entry.

    Personally, I consider this a significant issue.

  • icecow

    I’m sorry I posted in the wrong section.

  • three blind mice

    You could add Estonia to the yellow group. We have the promotional site up, some articles in press and first version translated.

    Henri Laupmaa it is interesting to see estonia adopting cc.

    as you may know, estonia played an important role in bringing many of aleksandr solzhenitsyn’s works to the west. along with sweden and norway, estonina was part of “the great northern route” that translated, copied, and distributed solzhenitsyn’s work – with his approval and under his careful control. of these countries, estonia was most important because solzhenitsyn was able to travel to estonia (a soviet client state) and work directly with those who were translating and re-typing his work.

    solzhenitsyn was, at first, a strong supporter of copyright. he did not want to see his works perverted (or badly translated) by others. russian authors – lacking any control over how their work was distributed in the west – had again and again suffered to see their literature mauled by western publishers.

    for this reason solzhenitsyn, and many other russian authors, had argued vigorously that the soviet union should enter into the international copyright convention. he naïvely believed that with the soviet union’s accession to the international copyright convention would give him control over his work – the natural instinct of any author.

    of course what the soviet authorities intended was that THEY – and not the author – would be able to use western copyright law to prevent books like “cancer ward” from being published in the west. moreover, under soviet copyright law the state could compulsory purchase (i.e., confiscate) the copyright of dead people threatening the lives of dissident russian authors. (an article published in le monde in march 1973 “un couteau dans le dos pour la littérature russe” – a knife in the back for russian literature – exposed this bitter irony.)

    strong copyright is an important tool for authors. for many it is not about making money, or squeezing the last drop of profit out of a work, it is about maintaining the purity of their work.

    for those who do not care so much what happens to their work once it is published – who do not care how it is distorted or modified – cc is an effective tool.

    but for those, like solzhenitsyn, whose every word was a bullet against oppression, strong, impenetrable copyright will remain vitally important.

  • Simon

    This may sound like a stupid question but… are the grey areas the same as the areas you call green?

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Mice said:

    strong copyright is an important tool for authors. for many it is not about making money, or squeezing the last drop of profit out of a work, it is about maintaining the purity of their work. for those who do not care so much what happens to their work once it is published – who do not care how it is distorted or modified – cc is an effective tool.

    cc is a name given to an organization that offers a set of tools, it is not a tool in itself. There is no “CC license”. You can still maintain the “purity of your work” with one of the cc licenses – this is what the option to prevent derivation is for – which is a choice you can make under the set of tools the cc offers. To speak of the cc as an ‘effective tool’ generates a misunderstanding. If you meant that the cc is an effective organization, then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

    To speak of the cc as a single tool is like speaking about “IP” and never referring to or acknowledging patents, copyright, or trademarks as separate and very different tools. It is a very superficial portrayal of what the cc is.

    Thank you for the information on solzhenitsyn. It was interesting.

  • http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/current.html Phil Hunt

    I don’t like the colur scheme used on the map — the red stands out too much and the green looksl ike grey. I looks like you’re emphasizing the red counttries.

    A better scheeme would be to use bright green instead of dull, and replace red with grey.

  • http://neftaly.com/ Neftaly Hernandez

    I have been looking at getting a major New Zealand clothing manfacturer to start marketing some CC-liscenced clothing – Very very good freinds with the owner (who is currently on a excessivly long trip in china ATM, even though he gets stuff made in NZ not ROC o_O)

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Mice continued:

    but for those, like solzhenitsyn, whose every word was a bullet against oppression, strong, impenetrable copyright will remain vitally important.

    Words that fight oppression should not be released under traditional, “strong” copyright. Such traditional copyright does not allow one to freely distribute the information without permission. If you want to fight oppression, you need a license that allows the content to be shared and distributed freely. This is why I questioned Ian and Jennifer’s “All Rights Reserved” approach in their last book. They obviously care about what they have to say and are more interested in getting more people talking and thinking about what they have to say. Profit is obviously not their driving motive. Therefore, a CC license that allows the sharing of content would be best if your intent is to change social consciousness and fight oppression.

    If you could explain why you think “impenetrable” copyright is better for such a purpose, I’m all ears. But at this point that doesn’t make sense to me.

  • three blind mice

    Words that fight oppression should not be released under traditional, “strong” copyright. Such traditional copyright does not allow one to freely distribute the information without permission.

    peter rock free distribution is meaningless (and indeed counterproductive) if what is distributed is not true and accurate. soviet authorities and their supporters in the west – routinely distorted the work of dissident authors like solzhenitsyn – to discredit them and to undermine the power of their literature.

    professor lessig writes the “red is yet to be liberated,” when truth be told it was authors like solzhenitsyn in control of their own literary work that did more to liberate these regions than anything for which the west can claim credit.

    when we say “impenetrable” we mean just that – copyright protection so strong that works of literature – like the gulag archipelago – cannot be modified, censored, or distorted by anyone. without this sort of copyright protection available to artists and authors, dissent would be stifled and the power of literature would be weakened.

    such things should not be sacrificed to the short term, self-serving interests of the downloading generation.

  • http://www.jonathanmitchell.info Jonathan Mitchell

    I think in fact the ‘green’ areas are ‘licence published’ plus Scotland which is actually ‘project launched’; while the ‘yellow’ are ‘project launched’ plus Norway, Denmark, India, and Northern Ireland… see http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ .

    However, according to the iTeamspace wiki list of CC contacts at http://iteamspace.creativecommons.org/wiki/Contact_info , there are also either projects or at least contacts in Ghana; Nigeria; Namibia; Senegal; Zimbabwe; Hong Kong; Malaysia; Pakistan; Singapore; Thailand; Nepal; Colombia; Peru; Puerto Rico; Venezuela; Andorra; Greece; Portugal; Romania; and Ukraine.

  • http://andfaraway.net Roba

    Oh, wow. We here in Jordan are about to be liberated!!! I am so Shocked.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Mice:

    peter rock free distribution is meaningless (and indeed counterproductive) if what is distributed is not true and accurate. soviet authorities and their supporters in the west – routinely distorted the work of dissident authors like solzhenitsyn – to discredit them and to undermine the power of their literature.

    This is a different issue. “Distorting” someone’s work via an oppressive and totalitarian regime, is not even in the same ballpark. Are you honestly trying to tell me that “strong copyright” is what will keep a totalitarian regime at bay? I completely agree that what is distributed must have the right to keep its integrity, but you seem to be saying that “strong copyright” is what provides that measure.

    without this sort of copyright protection available to artists and authors, dissent would be stifled and the power of literature would be weakened.

    But that is obviously false. Government that is not oppressive is what provides the measure of protection to disseminate information. Do you honestly believe that it is “strong copyright” that will eventually give the Chinese populous freedom to speak and listen (i.e. participate fully in the noosphere) over TCP/IP? Are you seriously stating this? Someone comes to your home and takes your Lessig :) books, wipes your hard drive clean and then remotely puts locks on what websites or files you can download – and you say this is a copyright issue(!?). Again I ask…are you seriously stating this?? I’m baffled by your perceived connection.

    such things should not be sacrificed to the short term, self-serving interests of the downloading generation.

    Are you referring to the “soviet”-like downloading generation? You just went off about liberty from oppressive regimes and then ended by equating them with “the downloading generation”. Is “downloading generation” secret code for “long-haired hippie communists”? Just a word of advice…you’re going to have a hard time convincing the oppressed of “strong copyright” if you refer to their oppressors as “the downloading generation”.

  • http://wen-xin.net Kevin

    To Chris:
    Regarding to the question of CC in China. We believes that the Buttom-up structure of CreativeCommons are mainly spread by grassroots. People who had adopted this idea will spread from their own, not government. CC China project had launched almost two years then, the concept are widely adopted by Chineses Bloggers, even some of IP researchers from academe become to addict once they got know about CC, along with more people/blogger adopt the concept, changes will eventually influencee the copyright condition in China. I guess you must be joking about mark cc on commodities. :)

  • Chris

    Kevin, Creative Commons assumes that the person who creates the expression can share the rights of the work with others. In China, however, those rights are not the creator’s but the government’s. When it comes to software, product designs, logos, books or movies, the Chinese government essentially puts the work into the public domain and gives everyone the right to rip, mix, burn and resell the work as if it was their own. But, when it comes to political speech, religious speech, Falun Gong, and unregistered websites the government essentially exerts the most severe copyright law possible. You can be murdered by your own government for disseminating information that the chinese government controls and doesn’t want to get out.

    Marking China as yellow in the Creative Commons map is travesty. It gives the impression that China has a reasonably consistent system of intellectual protection with the rest of the modern world when in reality, it’s stuck in the stone age.

  • http://lemi4.blogdrive.com Lemi4

    Umm… anybody got any tips on how to start a CC group in my country?

  • three blind mice

    peter rock, the mice will not comment on china. the impact of copyright on china’s future is a matter for speculation.

    let’s look at an example of history. one of the turning points of napleon’s russian campaign in 1812 was when a french regiment was routed by cossack cavalry near novocherkassk, the historic capital of the don cossacks. a brilliant and brave event in russian history, the cossacks were celebrated in russian literature as defenders of the motherland.

    the story of this event was chronicled in the epic story “The Quiet Don” which was attributed by soviet authorities to one mikhail sholokhov. through this attribute, sholokhov – a loyal party member – became ranked first among the impressive literary hierarchy of the soviet union. sholokhov became the living embodiment of the party’s central committee and routinely held speeches on the floor of the supreme soviet.

    all of this would be uninteresting to this thread except for the fact that sholokhtov was not the author. the real author – fydor kryukov – was a dissident and his original version of the book (written in 1917) also contained a description of modern events quite unflattering to the soviet authorities. kryudov, a cossack himself, described how the don cossacks – direct decendents of the famous calvary – were treated with utter contempt and systematically destroyed by the bolsehviks as they attempted to defend their ancient way of life against an invasion of bolshevik ideology.

    wanting to suppress the original author (a politcal prisoner who would otherwise have achieved literary fame in russia) and needing to conceal the atrocities committed against their own people, the russians took The Quiet Don into the commons, ripped, mixed, and burned the original version and released an “improved” version attributed to sholokhov.

    the version published in russia and in the west catapulted sholokhov to literary – and political – fame and the censored edition gave a completely false picture of russian history.

    had kryukov been able to assert his copyright and stop the publication and distribution of the false version, history might have been different.

    but without copyrigtht, there was nothing kryukov could do to prevent others from misappropriating his work, robbing him of his fame, silencing his voice, and distorting his history.

    now of course we know that this sort of thing is not what cc is intended to encourage. our point is that true “liberation” – that resulting from freedom of speech – is more likely to come from strong copyright than from the elevation of consumer’s rights over the rights of authors and aritsts to control the reproduction and distribution of their work.

    the estonians should know this better than anyone.

  • elizabeth *k

    three blind mice–

    you are utterly missing the point here. you are confusing the practices of a repressive regime with argument for a strong copyright system. in fact, without *access* to one’s original work, one’s message could not be easily spread. thus, encouragement of say, an attribution noncommerical no derivs license may be in order. such a license would *not* allow members of the government, under the current US system at least, to modify the work (except as any fair use provisions would provide). i do agree that there can be cases, especially in oppressive regimes, where the modification of a work may not always be a good thing. under a creative commons license, however, this does not have to be the case.

    you are confusing the lack of existence of a copyright system to one in which differing licenses can be granted to allow for socially beneficial uses of works. in fact, such a cc license would be arguably better for such a work than a traditional copyright license, as in it would be able to be freely transmitted in its original form for noncommercial uses, and the word could be spread. otherwise, with a traditional (c) license, any copying of the work (outside of fair use) would not be legal. if someone made a derivative work that was not a fair use, the author would still have the ability to sue for infringement with the cc license.

    a lack of rule of law in a repressive regime and a lockdown style copyright system are in no way equivalent, and the latter is no solution to the former.

  • http://www.glosas.com javier

    Hi, Professor, I’m a young constitutional law professor from Spain, and I’ve bought “Free Culture” (“Por una cultura libre”) spanish edition two days ago. Thanks! It’s nice reading it on paper and in my own language under the shade of a tree in “el Parque del Retiro” (Madrid) Some of my students will read it this summer! Spain is already a Creative Common land…