Barbara Lattanzi on Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:25:01 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Fwd: All Hail Creative Commons |
>From: Tom Damrauer <tomd@panix.com> >To: threads@pce.net >Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:07:30 -0500 >Subject: All Hail Creative Commons >X-Sender: tomd@popserver.panix.com (Unverified) > >All Hail Creative Commons: Stanford professor and author Lawrence Lessig >plans a legal insurrection Hal Plotkin, >Special to SF Gate (SF Chronicle) Monday, February 11, 2002 > >URL: http://www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/ > >Stanford law professor and author Lawrence Lessig and a small band of >collaborators at MIT, Duke, Harvard and Villanova are about to embark on a >new endeavor that could help reignite the global high-tech economy. > >A prolific thinker, writer and doer, and a national authority on >intellectual-property law and a former columnist at The Industry Standard, >Lessig is perhaps best known as the author of two of the most important >books yet produced about computers, the Internet and how our legal system >deals with them: "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace," and his more recent >work, "The Future of Ideas." > >In an interview last week, Lessig confirmed the basic details about his >latest venture, Creative Commons, which is slated to be formally unveiled >in a few months. > >In a boon to the arts and the software industry, Creative Commons will >make available flexible, customizable intellectual-property licenses that >artists, writers, programmers and others can obtain free of charge to >legally define what constitutes acceptable uses of their work. The new >forms of licenses will provide an alternative to traditional copyrights by >establishing a useful middle ground between full copyright control and the >unprotected public domain. > >The first set of licensing options Creative Commons plans to make >available are designed mostly for people looking for some protections as >they move their wares into the public domain. Those protections might >include requirements that the work not be altered, employed for commercial >purposes or used without proper attribution. > >Lessig adds that it's possible Creative Commons' licenses may eventually >evolve to include options that permit or enable certain commercial >transactions. An artist might, for example, agree to give away a work as >long as no one is making money on it but include a provision requiring >payments on a sliding scale if it's sold. As participation in the Commons >project increases, a variety of specific intellectual-property license >options will evolve in response to user needs, which in turn would create >templates for others with similar requirements. > >Within a few months, artists, writers and others will soon be able to go >online, select the options that suit them best and receive a custom-made >license they can append to their works without having to pay a dime to a >lawyer, let alone the thousands of dollars it typically costs to purchase >similar legal services. > >"We also want to facilitate machine-readable languages," adds Lessig, who >will be taking a partial leave from Stanford to help jump-start the >Creative Commons effort. > >In Lessig's model, an MP3 song or a document or any other intellectual >property would contain a special machine-readable tag that specifies the >exact licensing terms approved by its creator. That means film >studentsmaking a movie, for example, could do a search, say, for jazz >songs released under public domain-friendly licenses that they can use for >their soundtrack without charge. > >At the same time, Creative Commons also plans to build a "conservancy" to >facilitate the preservation and sharing of intellectual property. > >A Win-Win Proposition > >In one masterstroke, Lessig and colleagues will empower creators of >intellectual property by giving them more control over their work while >also increasing the communal technical resources that contribute to >innovation and growth. The result will be a new spark of life for the >Internet, and for the tech sector in general. > >Rather than abandon an outdated software program, for example, a computer >company would have the option of donating its source code to the Creative >Commons conservancy, where people could build on it to create other new >and useful products. > >Some of that activity, of course, is already taking place within the >often-chaotic open-source software community. But many mainstream business >executives have been reluctant to hop aboard the open-source bandwagon. >Some of them have expressed fears that the origins and ownership of >certain open-source code projects could eventually come into question. >Many of them would prefer to play it safe, deal with proprietary vendors >and not take any chances. > >The Creative Commons conservancy will address some of those fears, in >part, by providing access to more reliable legal protections that will >make participation in open-source projects more likely. The implicit >guarantees that usually accompany most open-source projects will be turned >into the more explicit, ironclad licensing language that helps build >confidence among information-technology professionals. Once an owner has >formally conserved a piece of work, for example, any risks of inadvertent >copyright infringement related to that work will be greatly reduced, if >not eliminated entirely. > >The project's backers hope that over time, companies and individuals may >even receive tax breaks for donating works to the conservancy. That >outcome could encourage the release of additional technical resources that >everyone can use. > >The Problem With Copyright Law > >For years now, Lessig and other critics have maintained that inflexible >copyright rules as they exist often just protect entrenched -- and usually >uncreative -- interests at the expense of virtually everyone else, >including many of those the copyright rules were originally supposed to >protect. > >He points out, for example, that when Congress first enacted copyright law >in 1790, the protection extended for a term of 14 years, which could be >renewed for another 14 years if the author was still alive. Congress has >since increased that term to the life of the author plus 70 years. Given >current life expectancies, that means a corporation can now bank on >preventing a piece of intellectual property produced by a 30-year-old >today from falling into the public domain for more than a century. > >Lessig says such practices run contrary to one of the main reasons >copyright law was conceived in the first place. Originally, he says, >copyright and patent laws sought to balance two competing interests: >protecting and rewarding innovators for their work, but also making sure >innovations were available for reuse or repurposing by others after a >reasonable length of time. > >The rationale for that policy goes something like this: > >The first person who figures out a new invention -- say, the wheel -- >deserves to get rich. But that person should not have a right to prevent >others from using his or her invention for so long that future progress is >hampered. What's often missed by the most ardent private-property >stalwarts (usually big-company lawyers, incidentally) is that the intended >goal of the copyright system was to provide incentives for creativity not >only for the originators of new ideas but also for others who want to use >and build on those ideas in other ways. > >Unfortunately, over the years concentrated financial interests have >convinced Congress to steadily shift that balance. Privatized rights have >won favor over the public interests that were once a far more essential >aspect of copyright protections. That trend has only accelerated recently, >as Congress has caved in to one demand after another from big media firms, >Microsoft and others to "strengthen" copyright protections for a variety >of high-tech digital goods. > >On one level, the Creative Commons idea is all about commerce. But its >deeper significance does not involve commerce in its usual form. Lessig >isn't just trying to make his own cash register ring. Instead, his goal is >to get millions of others ringing by making it easier to create new goods, >products and services. In a larger sense, the goal is to make the world >safer for innovators by nurturing the conditions that lead to economic >growth and technological progress. > >Not a Moment too Soon > >In his most recent book, Lessig makes a convincing case that the health of >the Internet and the tech sector in general is being choked off by >increasingly successful efforts to erect proprietary bottlenecks that >prevent competition. The most obvious example is Microsoft's Windows >operating system, which remains the subject of federal antitrust >litigation. But there are many other similar, although less >well-publicized, cases that could prove equally worrisome over time. > >A company called Thomson Multimedia, for example, owns patents to the >popular MP3 digital music format. So far, the company has made it >relatively easy for others to adopt the technology, which has facilitated >its wide use and rapid acceptance. But like Microsoft, Thomson could >decide at some future date that the time has come to more fully exploit >its dominant position as the key enabler of online music-delivery systems. >Thatuncertainty puts at risk the business plans of every company or artist >that relies on MP3s, which is just one of the reasons there are so few >investors interested in online music ventures these days. It's just too >risky building a business in a sandlot someone else owns. > >Lessig says the solution to that and other problems can be found in the >age-old idea of the commons -- that is, the notion that society and the >economy are better off when certain resources are protected and made >freelyavailable. Public streets, for example, provide accessible places >where businesses can set up shop and where goods can be transported. >Likewise, laws that prevented phone companies from discriminating between >voice and data traffic allowed free use of those lines for other purposes, >which in turn helped create the Internet. > >The Creative Commons conservancy service is intended to extend that >approach to as many other areas as possible. > >"One of our goals is to lower the cost to give something away, and to make >it harder for people to be ambushed [by proprietary claims]," says Lessig. > >The result will be a more robust, healthier high-tech economy. > >And this time, remarkably, a lawyer will actually deserve credit for >helping make it happen. > >Veteran Silicon Valley writer and broadcaster Hal Plotkin is also a >contributing writer at Harvard Business School's publishing division. >-- >========================================================================== >tomd@panix.com >Tom Damrauer > >PGP fingerprint: D9 29 D2 9D E7 92 87 23 9B B7 4B FB 56 3B CF BB >My public key is available by fingering me or on public key servers. _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold