Comments on: Two friends of CC — updated Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Alan Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:41:09 +0000 If this is the biggest moral, ethical, etc. issue facing our time, why did Gore not just distribute the film for free from the beginning. Why did he sell the rights so that the commenters here have to talk about some owner.

Where is Gore’s responsibility in this?

The answer lies in the money. Like the carbon credits he purchases from himself, there is more to this story.

If this was only about the great GW, then free distribution would have been the way.

By: Simon Stolzenbach Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:14:36 +0000 When Florian and his wife Christiane Henckel von Donnersmarck now moving to Hollywood, we will have presently the first Hollywood Blogbuster under CC license, isn’t it? It will be interesting!

By: VideoKarma Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:06:27 +0000 Peter-

about your first commnet, I agree 100%.. The film did not even begin to touch on oter serious implications of golbal warming.. It’s the ultimate issue facing us as a species !!

Consider that O2 levels are down from a high of around 35% (pre-industrial revolution) to as low as 7% in big cities like Tokyo!

Yikes !

By: Peter Rock Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:52:16 +0000 We could try talking first. I tried to find a contact for “Paramount Pictures” on their website but I can’t seem to get the information without installing proprietary software on my system (Flash).

So, I wrote an email to a generic Paramount Vantage email address basically asking who makes the licensing decisions. Unless I’m mistaken, Paramount Vantage is “charged with producing, purchasing, distributing and marketing” an Inconvenient Truth.

Perhaps if we can open a dialog with the “owner”, we can free this media?

info@participantproductions is where I tried. No response thus far.

Any other suggestions?

By: lessig Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:25:46 +0000 People need to press the owners of the film to set it free. Neither the star (Gore) nor the director (Davis) has that freedom. Sounds like a simple thing to organize around, no?

By: Peter Rock Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:26:28 +0000 LESSIG says:

The press needs to be to them to make it BY-NC free.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand. To be what to them?

By: LESSIG Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:16:12 +0000 You’re not missing anything about what would be best, or about what Gore would want (I suspect). But the film is owned by someone else. The press needs to be to them to make it BY-NC free.

By: Peter Rock Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:15:16 +0000 I just found this quote:

Al Gore says:

Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming.

This is good. Now just slap a CC NC-BY license on those puppies and we’re aligning our energy efficiently. Otherwise, All Rights Reserved is in direct conflict with the goal to “spread the message”.

Or am I missing something?

By: Peter Rock Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:41:43 +0000 I still scratch my head in amazement that “An Inconvenient Truth” is not under a copyright license allowing noncommerical redistribution.

What was the purpose of making this documentary?

Everything and the kitchen sink needs to be thrown at this crisis so it makes no sense for All Rights Reserved to slow down the dissemination of such media. We can always play games with mother nature and even flirt with the idea that we’re in control. But in the end, she wins in 7.