Comments on: The Matrix, part two Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Janet Hawtin Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:46:36 +0000 My concern is that dividing into shared and commercial is destructive and consistent with drm / microsoft thinking.

If we start with two circles which are largely overlapped
and 90% of the material is in the middle.
5% one side was purely shared gift work
5% otherside could be purely patent mine only
The 90% material in the middle is material which could generate commercial value but is also used in the community for education, it might be professional knowledge that people share but earn from too, it might be styles of singing, blues jazz that people learn from but also participate in freely.
Currently the groups in the patent mine only end of the spectrum are using arguments for commerce to move more and more material into that sector. The problem with that strategy is that there is no group representing the rest of us who see the function of information more broadly as something which can generate commerce while also serving wider functions within our community. Stories become the cultural infrastructure of the growing generation, but if they live in a subscribe only world their appreciation of theemselves as makers is stunted, same with scientific or technical development. A culture which is primarily subscription based has lost much of its inner resilience.
As a garden it is a monoculture with black plastic between the authorised plants.
Yes there are people on the free side of the circles aiming to have material fully free and gifted.
There are also a growing population in the middle circle looking at the way that information has been traditionally shared and commercial and wondering why it needs to be locked up for the current crop of people to make a living. Given the increases in technological subtlty it is a very dramatic shift in the intrusive characteristics of the monopoly and is also being aggressively pursued in law with impact on community and cultural as well as business confidence. If you live in a community where a large proportion of the media available is broadcast from a nation which is interested in strictly controlling participation in that media your community is basically disenfranchised.
In ths same way that the judges are interested in their traditional contours of copyright ..the rest of us are looking for the natural contours of community dialogue, shared and collaborative learning, traditional shared story telling, and commerce in the same mix, just commerce which is not restriction based.
It is not that we are determining the choices of creators it is that creators are making choices which exclude everyone else, because they are told that to be commercial they must not share.
We are training people to desertify the centre of the circle so that people are no longer making commerce without restriction because the laws and even file formats are being built to channel creators into exclusive modes of operating.
This helps broadcast mode businesses which operate from a perspective where there is a single source.
This is not useful for distributed mode businesses which operate from the perspective of participation as a value and of multiple sources of contribution.
Generating a table which defines things as sharing or commercial is not accurate. Please consider adapting it so that it shows
shared not for profit or community information? | commercial and community non restricive | commercial restrictive
This is more explicit of the cost of restrictive commercial practise.
Too many people think the commons is the first sector only.
Shared information has traditionally been a part of the
This is how information has been for our communities and businesses. There are dramatic social costs already caused by restrictions on IP in the interests of commercial profit.
In my opinion restriction is a model which has been built by people who broker information because the rest of the world which actually create and interacts with it lose out as a result.
The Access 2 Knowledge movement is growing.
I am hoping that they will grow and make it evident that the community role of information is important and that commerce is not a function of restriction.
Information brokers are looking for growth in their sector and so instead of new products or new ideas they are becoming more intrusive and militant. A digital book cannot be a gift to a friend.
Students who are not physically at school are not safe to use materials for educational purposes. It is a nonsense. It is disfunctional. Sharing is natural. Commerce is important, restriction is not. It would be a shame if while the A2K people are buidling people’s understanding of the role of information in society, the creative commons is exploring the nether regions of restriction and describing restriction as commerce.

By: Aliaser Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:39:25 +0000 Why Second Life is considered “sharing” while Youtube is commercial???
I think Second Life should be considered Commercial/RW, at least you must pay something even to upload a file in SL.. While in Youtube it is free….
Maybe SL could be another good example of hybrid…. anyway..

By: three blind mice Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:55:11 +0000 But the proof the anti-copyright folks must make is that no work needs the protection of copyright. (emphasis in the original)

*mice dance with glee.*

that’s really the crux of the matter, innit professor?

if copyright is, in fact, needed for some works (as we mice believe), then one must enable the creators of such works the means to enforce their copyright.

resistance is futile.

By: Crosbie Fitch Tue, 09 Jan 2007 08:39:06 +0000 How many musicians over the years have selected a publisher to promote and publish their recordings, precisely upon the expectation that they will prosecute their fans to enforce the publisher’s exploitation of their copyright?

The musician’s commercial expectation is that they sell their music to their fans, and that their publishers may enjoy a commission.

That publishers agree to respect mutual monopolies is one thing, but for lawyers to argue that this can be extended to suspend the public’s liberty and prosecute individuals for sharing and building upon free culture is losing sight of ethics in pursuit of the publishers’ continued profit.

Let’s try and get back to the principle of letting the artist sell their work to their audience, and away from selling the restoration of their audience’s liberty back to them. No doubt there’s much money to be made from the latter, but this doesn’t make it ethical.

By: lessig Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:34:11 +0000 First, it is not true that an author “retains a right to absolute control and ownership of their work whilst within their private domain, i.e. until they choose to publish it.” Under US copyright law, even unpublished work enters the public domain.

Second, “[w]hy on earth should one ‘creator’ be given the right to suspend the liberty of all other artists and members of the public in their use of the work the ‘creator’ has voluntarily chosen to deliver to them?” Why indeed, but now we’re back to Econ 101. If it is true that some work couldn’t be produced without this exclusive right, then the answer to “why” is because by so restricting the public, we get creative work we otherwise wouldn’t have.

One might respond to that argument by claiming lots of work would be produced even without copyright. (Justice Breyer got tenure at Harvard making just such an argument: See Breyer, Stephen, “The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies and Computer Programs.” 84 Harvard Law Review 281-351, 1976.)

But such a response misses the point. Again, I’m not claiming all creativity needs copyright. And I’m really eager to cut back this regulation of speech where it is not necessary (such has been my life for a decade now). But the proof the anti-copyright folks must make is that no work needs the protection of copyright.

That, in my view, is an economic argument. It is not a moral argument, since all moral arguments about it are in the end circular. E.g., your claim that “the ‘creator’ has voluntarily chosen to deliver” the work to the public. “Creators” “volunteer” within particular legal regimes. If the regime is one with copyright, then the “voluntary” action includes the protection of copyright. If the regime has no copyright, then of course I agree with respect to those who continue to create. But the whole argument is about those who cannot create because their is insufficient incentive. For hundreds of years, societies answered that failure of incentives by telling creators to go work for kings. I agree with Netanel (Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, 106 Yale Law Journal 283 (1996)). It is progress to have moved beyond that patronage society.

By: Crosbie Fitch Tue, 09 Jan 2007 06:51:53 +0000 Why on earth should one ‘creator’ be given the right to suspend the liberty of all other artists and members of the public in their use of the work the ‘creator’ has voluntarily chosen to deliver to them?

A creator retains a right to absolute control and ownership of their work whilst within their private domain, i.e. until they choose to publish it.

Questionable monopolistic privileges designed to restrict a few commercial publishers over published works do not get any more justifiable simply because all people are now publishers.

A mandate to suspend the liberty of owners of printing presses is not transformed by default into an authorial right to suspend the liberty of the public – as much as commercial publishers would wish it to be.

So, irrespective of whether a copyright holder may retain some residual commercial advantage by restoring some liberties back to the public for non-commercial use, whilst retaining them for their own commercial exploitation, this does not change the fact that copyright remains an unethical suspension of all artists’ liberty to share and build upon human culture.

By: lessig Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:14:08 +0000 Serge: My mistake. Exactly right. The website isn’t RW.

Crosbie: We’ve got no conflict about objectives. I suspect the only conflict is about whether copyright should be part of the solution. I certainly don’t mean to “discriminate” against commercial use. My only purpose is to reserve that judgment to the creator. To remove that right from the creator is to abolish copyright. I’m a big believer in that strategy in some places. I’m not a believer in that strategy generally. In my view, there are two mistakes about copyright out there, each the other side of the same coin: either to believe that the same model of copyright should govern all creativity, or to believe no copyright should protect any creativity.

By: Crosbie Fitch Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:33:12 +0000 I don’t know about you, but I’m championing both the right of the author to commercially exploit their labour and the right of the author to freely build upon public works.

Perhaps you can see how this is in diametric opposition to a copyright supported ‘non-commercial’ restraint?

Free culture is about enabling artists to build upon published works and to sell their creations. The last thing you’d want to do is to discourage artists from charging for their work, or to prohibit use of their work by other artists who would like to earn a living.

This is why it’s a strange to discriminate between commerce and sharing, rather than either commerce vs non-commerce or sharing vs non-sharing.

Apart from some strange free-love, communist hippies I don’t think anyone’s proposing that artists shouldn’t enjoy the opportunity to exchange their labour for money in a free market like anyone else.

The elephant in the room isn’t whether commerce is right or wrong, but whether the public should be prosecuted for sharing and building upon human culture as it has done for millennia.

Stories used to be embellished by word of mouth, and paintings by a fair eye and deft hand. Today it’s all by binary digits.

The blip of copyright is an economic artifice whose time has come and gone. Unfortunately, a printers’ agreed monopoly has become a suspension of the people’s liberty.

Because people are publishers and always have been.

It’s just taken a while for everyone to get hold of a printer.

By: Serge Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:44:38 +0000 Maybe my last comment wasn’t clear.

Free Software’s documentation is often made modifiable in license, but not in implementation. You can go to the FSF’s web site and download the documentation, modify and then republish it- but you can’t do the last two on the FSF’s site.

The content is RW, the site is RO.

I may have misunderstood the original question but I thought it was about websites, since the material is RW but the site is RO