Re: Question re: Lessig and the Creative Commons project

[David Carlson <dcarlson@lib.siu.edu>]

I understand David Wiley's response (copy below) to Bob Bolick's
email, but I wanted to make two comments about it.

I expect that most people on the listserv know well that email's a very
tricky medium of communication. When I see a smiley face on an email (as
Bolick included) I give as much latitude in interpretation as possible. As
a result, I think it's unfair for Wiley to characterize Bolick's email as
taunting. The smiley face informs me that it was offered in a joking
manner and in all good-humor; I doubt that taunting was intended though I
can understand why Mr. Wiley felt this way. As someone whose emails have
been taken in ways I *never* imagined or intended, I would encourage
generosity in interpretation.

That said, I also wanted to comment on the substance of Mr. Bolick's
email. He did not define who he thought had membership in the
"info-want-to-be-free crowd" besides the folks behind the creative
commons, but in my opinion these kind of people have always been
supportive of licensing and copyright. It's the librarians and other
people who know and are concerned about intellectual property issues that
are protective of copyright and concerned that institutions honor
provisions of license provisions: witness the very existence of
liblicense-l! What concerns this community, I think, is that the
commercial interests are attempting to redefine fair use in a way that
eviscerates its intent, utility, purpose and scope.

Someday I hope to write in an email: 

Glad to see the fair-use-is-cash-only crowd endorsing reasonable,
enforceable licensing provisions and fair use that's fair.

And let me add ;-) 

At 02:11 PM 10/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:

On 10/1/02 3:39 PM, Bolick, Bob taunted me by saying Glad to see the
info-wants-to-be-free crowd actually endorsing licensing and respect for
copyright. ;-)

This is an interesting perspective. I've seen the formation of things like
OpenContent and later Creative Commons much more as a preemptive strike by
the info-wants-to-be-free crowd to provide legal guarantees that info can
be free when info-ought-to-be-owned folks try to come in and make a
variety of claims against information that the free crowd tries to make
available.

This was certainly my motive in obtaining a contractual agreement to a
specific license before agreeing to publish my last book. I had fears that
the publisher would eventually come back to the info-ought-to-be-owned
mindset. Once we had an agreement that the Open Publication License would
be used, which meant that I could provide a free electronic copy of the
book online, I could contribute with peace of mind...

Just another perspective ;)

David Wiley, PhD