[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question re: Lessig and the Creative Commons project

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