Re: MPS and PLoS Sign Agreement

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

I really don't see the value to authors of a CC license outside 
of the areas I described in my previous email.  In the end, CC is 
about administrative efficiency and users' rights.  Nothing wrong 
with that.  But what it means as a practical matter is that the 
bulk of the most valuable content will not get into the CC arena, 
except insofar as it is used for promotional purposes.  Again, 
nothing wrong with that.  The real problem is that the very real 
virtues of CC have amazingly metastasized into a secular 
religion.

Joe Esposito

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jan Velterop 
velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Of course you may quibble. The point of this list is discussion,
> after all. Thanks for the correction. I realise I used a wrong
> term (quite apart from the religious connotations of 'limbo',
> which I had never heard of until I came to live in the UK, even
> though I, too, was raised a catholic - for me it used to mean a
> low dance, bending over backwards under a horizontal pole). I
> should have used 'open access limbo' instead of 'legal limbo'.
>
> Sandy's question was about the value of a CC licence to the
> author. Well, taking an article unequivocally out of 'open access
> limbo' and ensuring that it will be recognised as open access is
> a value to the author, no? Whenever I write article, I do see
> that as a value to me, in any case. If CC licences didn't have a
> value to authors (creators in general), it simply wouldn't be
> used. Or is that too Darwinian an assumption?
>
> Jan Velterop
>
> PS. I also stand corrected on the moral rights issue. Thanks,
> John Cox, for the clarification. It has to do with legislation in
> particular countries; not with the distinction between Roman Law
> and Common Law. See John's posting.