October 12, 2005  ·  Lessig

So I’m having some fun writing up this history and future of Creative Commons, which I’m doing as penance for the fund raising campaign. If you’d like to read week 2, it’s here. If you’d like to give something to support Creative Commons, you can do so here. And if you read what I’ve written without supporting Creative Commons, well, we’ll just see how things turn out for you (and us, I guess).

  • http://civildisorder.org Dan

    On Fair Use:

    Please read
    An Interview With Udo Eberlein, President Of Nero, Inc.
    Mr. Eberlein states that the content holder “can define what they believe is a fair use”.

    I always thought that the government (and ultimately the people who grant power to the government) had the right and jurisdiction to define fair use.

    I’d like to hear anyone’s opinion.

  • http://hurstassociates.blogspot.com Jill Hurst-Wahl

    I just wanted to say that I truly appreciate what the Creative Commons is doing. (And, yes, I’ll donate to the cause.) I’ve been mentioning the CC in workshops and lectures, because the CC licenses help us to be clear about our intentions. If we can be clearer about our intentions, then that will help the users. Please keep up the good work.

  • anonymous

    Dear Professor Lessig,

    You will secure your place in the dark history of our culture by your celebration of cultural mediocrity through enshrining a sophormoric “creativity” that derives solely from manipulating a true creators’ original work, undermining respect for authors’ rights, polluting copyright with your “licenses”, and contributing to the decline of civilization by pandering to the entitlement generation, to which you are clearly an icon.

    One measure of your “success” is the absolute contempt for Creative Commons by original authors who labor their entire lives to create original works, protect their personal artistic integrity and expression, and prosper as best they may from the body of work they create.

    Your legacy will speak for itself, and “we’ll just see how things turn out for you”, too.

  • three blind mice

    You will secure your place in the dark history of our culture by your celebration of cultural mediocrity through enshrining a sophormoric “creativity” that derives solely from manipulating a true creators’ original work, undermining respect for authors’ rights, polluting copyright with your “licenses”, and contributing to the decline of civilization by pandering to the entitlement generation, to which you are clearly an icon.

    well, anonymous, that was a useless and largely ignorant comment. the three blind mice are the last rodents on earth to defend professor lessig’s crackpot ideas, but…

    your celebration of cultural mediocrity through enshrining a sophormoric “creativity” that derives solely from manipulating a true creators’ original work.

    cc is – at its core – about innovation in how content is cataloged, distributed, enjpyed by the end-user. standard copyright doesn’t really fit the web, cc is specially designed for it. the benefits to derivative creativity is a side show to this.

    undermining respect for authors’ rights, polluting copyright with your “licenses”

    anonymous please. cc is an alternative form of license. it does not pollute copyright. it doesn’t change anything about copyright. it simply gives authors and writers greater choice. you can choose to cc, you can choose not to cc.

    contributing to the decline of civilization by pandering to the entitlement generation

    well maybe a little. professor lessig IS a university professor after all.

    to which you are clearly an icon.

    dude, why the hate? these are important issues. moreoever these are complicated issues. they deserve to debated. professor lessig has done a great deal to bring the boring, musty, dusty issue of copyright into the light of public debate and that achievement deserves a little icon status.

  • http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/ Ann Bartow

    I just made a contribution, because I really believe in this. But I almost bailed at the last second, and here is why: The CC tee shirts come in the following sizes:

    women’s medium
    men’s small
    men’s medium
    men’s large
    men’s x large
    men’s 2x large

    Nothing like making me feel freakish and and othered when I am donating money…

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

    Lawrence Lessig:

    But unlike the Free Software Movement, our aim was not to eliminate “proprietary culture” as at least some in the Free Software Movement would like to eliminate proprietary software.

    I’ve never actually heard of anyone wanting to “eliminate proprietary software” in its entirety. That would be extremist, absurd, and lacking reason. I know that wasn’t said, but some unaware of what the free softwarfe movement is about may interpret Larry’s comment like that.

    So to clarify:

    Many free software supporters such as myself – and RMS for example – just want all software that would be used on a device that can flexibly load and change programs to be free (e.g. what is commonly thought of as a ‘computer’ and other closely related devices).

    Of what consequence is it if the program that is embedded in your microwave oven is proprietary? Such software doesn’t limit a microwave user’s freedom in any significant manner. To call for such software to fit the free software definition would be unreasonable. Black boxes are not harmful if they are simply used – for example – to reheat your cold pizza.

    Computers are tools designed to explore, study, manipulate and “hack” away at code. Although many who support Collusive Computing (aka “Trusted Computing) and the Hollywood content-control agenda want to turn the computer into a TV on steroids, that is not what a computer is primarily for. There are many good reasons to support the movement for 100% free software used on these types of tools. But that does not mean the “elimination of proprietary software” altogether.

    As far as I know, myself, RMS and other free software supporters are only for the elimination of proprietary software under certain circumstances – the ‘computer’ being the most obvious one. Every circumstance and device using software must be treated on a case-by-case basis. For anyone who ever says “all software under any circumstances must be free” is simply a kook who has lost objectivity.

  • anonymous

    Mice,

    You disappoint. I did not think you would openly shill for Larry.
    You call for debate – but honest debate does not happen in a hostile atmosphere that looks with dismissive disdain upon authors.

    I’ve observed and read Lessig for several years. He is intellectually dishonest in any debate. He never holds up to an audience of creators and he is openly contemptuous to thoughtful and challenging questions. But he plays so very, very well to users. He is glorified (discretely) by the new content aggregators that see him as their unwitting (? or maybe not . . ?) Quisling in their quests to sell access to protected works.

    Lessig accomplishes nothing more than crafting new tortured twists and sham justifications on the age-old imbalanced exploitation of authors’ rights. It’s tiresome, predictable, and far, far from visionary.

  • Karen Rustad

    He is intellectually dishonest in any debate…etc etc etc

    Claims without justifications, dearie. You’re free to badmouth Lessig all you want behind your claim of anonymity, but you’re not going to convince anyone else who doesn’t already agree with you.