Slashdot Mirror

There's plenty of them on the web - look at the explosion of webcomics.

I said "share-and-share-alike license", not "no-derivatives license".

It would be nice to see some 'open sourced' player models, motion captures, sound effects, musics, etc, etc.. I know there are a ton of people versed in 3D modelling out there. Perhaps they can offer up some of their 3D 'doodles' to the OSS community for use in games. Maybe a sort of BSD/GPL liscense for artwork/data?

Creative Commons might have what you are looking for. Licenses for other artistic works like music, books, etc.

What you think about licences of Creative Commons? Are they really free licences for software, documentation and art?

It seems, that at least NoDerivs- and NonCommercial-licenses are non-free. After that only these licences are left:

• Attribution
• ShareAlike
• Attribution-ShareAlike
• Public Domain (not really a licence)

I know that the Creative Commons makes licenses for other types of creative works than software, but I can't help feeling when I look at the list of software licensing possibilities in this story (Public Domain, BSD, GPL, Shared Source, Proprietary) that there's something missing here that is present in the licensing options from the Creative Commons.

I would throw in another license between GPL and Shared that allows more than just a glance at the code (ie. use it, modify it, do what you need to with it), but restricts redistribution more than the GPL does. The problems with this gap being there are several:

• This is how many companies license their software, but while the Open Source community is happy to applaud and welcome the Creative Commons, it leaves these companies out in the cold.
• Sometimes other forms of limiting redistribution are necessary to a business model. The only legit way of limiting redistribution in Open Source (the GPL's "worm" or "cancer" clause ;) only really works for things that would be extended or linked to, but "out-of-the-box" software doesn't make money that way.

I know that Open Source isn't about money-making, and that redistribution of some kind is one of the fundamental Open Source requirements, but (especially in this economy) programmers need to eat too. So while many of us are compelled to make our work "as Open as possible", we're kicked in the butt when we're told it's "not Open enough". This means that a company falling somewhere between GPL and Shared Source can't use either well-known moniker, and since it's software they're talking about, can't use the Creative Commons as a point of reference either. I feel that one of the benefits of being Open Source is the reputation that comes along with it, one of not "locking people in".

So I guess my question is, why the double-standard? Or is Open Source just missing that gap and either a) willing to include qualifying Creative Commons-like licenses or b) willing to clarify its stance on the licenses of the Creative Commons?

The CC License Engine framework really does all that is needed to identify a license that would allow the P2P network to redistribute the material , so why not use it?

Or am I missing something now?

Why is this causing such an "outrage"? Stealing copyrighted material IS wrong. If you don't like it, then well, tough shit. Copyrights are there for a reason (let's forego the whole argument about Disney and never-expiring copyrights -- that's a different topic). If I own a work of art that I've put a lot of effort into, I certainly do not want it copied around without any control on my part, unless I've specifically granted everyone permission to do so by releasing it under the "free unlimited distribution allowed" license (e.g. this creative commons clause). If you violate my copyright, then I want you punished. If you think this is unfair of me, then fart in my general direction and don't use my work. I will certainly understand and not be offended in the slightest.

You cannot expect every artist to put their works into the public domain or license them for free distribution. That's just not how this world works, whatever your youthful idealism is telling you. Please respect people's copyrights and don't steal their works. If you do, then don't make a scene when they press charges.

I've decided to start a new recording label to see what happens. The plan is to release music under a Creative Commons license. Music will be released for general use & copying - just call us first if you're going to make money out of it as we may want our cut.

You'll be able to buy CD's if you want or download lower quality copies of music from the site. If you want to rip & burn & share the music - go for it. The more people doing it, the better - get our names out there.

The end goal is to do something like the open source/free software movement with music. Get money from somewhere else while making your music. If you get popular, maybe you get calls asking you to write stuff for movies, parties, elevators (god forbid! :), etc. Maybe you get calls to go on tour. Maybe you don't.

Sorta means that the people who are producing the music are those who love it enough to dedicate their evenings, weekends and general spare time into its creation while working somewhere else for a living. I don't know about you, but to me those folks usually put out music with more spirit and feeling because it's a passion, not a living...

For my work I prefer the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (you can make any derivative works you like so long as they, too, are Free, and you must cite me as the original author). Essentially Public Domain without the ability to take and not give, and with the requirement you do not plagerize.

In the mean time donate every copyright you own to the public domain

But surely there are things for which the copyright has expired?

As the current generation of American senior citizens dies, nobody will remember the publication of any work before 1923, the threshold for perpetual copyright under U.S. law. (Canada is a bit nicer, expiring copyrights 50 years after the last surviving author has died.)

Or that were released by the author?

Until Creative Commons picks up momentum, that doesn't amount to much.

it is sufficient that my work is copy or derivative from public domain.

Mega-publisher's retained attorneys will accuse you: "Sure, you copied a Beethoven work, but a Beethoven work wasn't the only thing you copied when writing that song. Please cease and desist distribution of derivatives of our client's copyrighted work."

Did CC piss on Kling's lawn, or what? Why so bitter? I can understand the argument defending the role of publishers to some extent, but in reality too much is "filtered". If we left it up to the big, commercial publishers Einstein would never have amounted to anything. More Danielle Steele, please!

That being said, I'm still trying to figure out why defending publishers requires attacking a project like Creative Commons. Yeah, the 5 million personal sites proclaiming "Hey, my name is Dorky McDork I like Satr Wars email me if you liek movies, two! LOL)LL" do kinda suck. But the need for search and filtering tools again is no reason to trash a project like CC that is "designed to help expand the amount of intellectual work, whether owned or free, available for creative re-use." How is this a bad thing?

But I preach to the choir. I need to copy this into an email to Kling.

--madgeorge

I work for a nonprofit, so my science fiction writing income actually accounts for a substantial chunk of my living.

I have never written an "original" word in my life. Every idea I've had has been inspired by those who came before me. I just released my first novel, both as a hardcover book and an ebook under the terms of a Creative Commons license. The novel is set in Walt Disney World, and revolves around the efforts of preservationists in a transhuman future who strive to keep the rides true to the original Imagineers' intent.

I take a lot of flak for my genuine admiration for the Disney Parks and films -- people want to know why I've thrown my lot in with the corporate crooks who've stolen the public domain out from under us. The fact of the matter is that Walt Disney is the poster child for the public domain. Walt's greatest works were built by taking off-the-shelf parts and stories and remixing them in novel and useful ways. Lessig notes that Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey cartoon, was a remix of a popular film called "Steamboat Bill." Exploring the bonus material on the latest DVD release of the cartoon shows that not only did Walt thrive on the public domain, but that the Disney Company's interest is in closing off that domain to everyone else:

"Orchestra starts playing opening verses of 'Steamboat Bill.' Try doing a cartoon take-off of one of Disney, Inc.'s latest films with an opening that copies the music, and see how far your Walt Empire gets."

Any artist who claims that her work is 100% original is lying or self-deluded. Art is embedded in culture. Art is a web, and it is enmeshed with the art that came before it and comes after it. Deriding the public domain as the refuge of the unimaginative makes about as much sense as pissing on coders who don't write their own OSes (or invent their own non-Turing, non-Von Neumann, non-non-Von Neumann computing engines, for that matter).

• Attribution. The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees must give the original author credit.

• Noncommercial. The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees may not use the work for commercial purposes -- unless they get the licensor's permission.

• No Derivative Works. The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display and perform only unaltered copies of the work -- not derivative works based on it.

Why is it that people create these virtual worlds that contain the same limitations as the real world. The idea of money only makes sense when you have scarcity. Guess what, this is cyberspace: there is no scarcity necessary here. And yet people build it into their worlds as a "feature".

What I would really find interesting to see is how such a world would look like when there is no scarcity. How would population centers look (usually city center means $$$).

An interesting quote I found in this Wired article:

These little economies raise big questions, therefore, and by no coincidence, they tend to be the big questions of the economic age. How, for instance, do we assign value to immaterial goods? What defines ownership when property becomes as fluid as thought? What defines productivity when work becomes a game and games become work?

Are we so used to the notion of scarcity that we wish to reproduce it in cyberspace? Would we not rather move beyond this idea?

Another interesting aspect to think about is how copyrights relate to this. Say I write a piece of code that represents my design for a Castle in such a virtual world. If I copyright it nobody else can legally build the same castle as me. And so the idea of scarcity is reintroduced. But it is only relevant as long as there is no rich public domain from which people can retrieve equivalent items. So hopefully there would be tons of castles available under a Creative Commons license.

So I went there to register The ZooLib Cookbook, but found that they only provide for registration of books licensed under one of the licenses that they themselves publish.

The ZooLib Cookbook is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, so I can't register it there. I really don't want to change the license just to register my book.

Bruce, may I suggest you recommend to people that they register at The Assayer instead?

The Assayer also allows readers to post reviews.

And perhaps you could lobby the folks at the creative commons to allow the registration of books on their site that are under other licenses, as long as the licenses are compatible with their aims.

Also of note, the XForms book I'm writing for O'Reilly will be published under the GFDL.

Before publication, the text-in-progress is also available, but under a somewhat more restrictive license, at http://dubinko.info/writing/xforms/.

This policy at O'Reilly dates back to at least May 2002, when I signed the contract.

.micah

Did anyone notice that the pages were licensed under a creative commons license? Take a look at the license: Creative Commons License 1.0 Quite interesting. --Meyer

Or did you mean that most people are too poor or too cheap to pay to have their content distributed? That may be true. But if that's the case, then they certainly don't need their content distributed, do they?

That's an amazing statement. Do you really believe the only people that should be able to distribute information widely are those that can afford to pay for high end services?

Arranging an ftp mirroring system is not scalable or accessible to any significant number of people.


Why do you keep trying to distort the argument? If a tool is used primarily for illegal purposes, that tool shouldn't be around.

I'll repeat, the law does not agree with you with respect to prior restraint of speech for which there is possible noninfringing uses.

The introduction of every new technology which can copy has seen cries to strangle it, photocopiers, VCRs, even the printing press. This is no distortion.

It's not like your files will get automatically mirrored on somebody else's system. Somebody has to do it deliberately, just like an FTP mirror.

Most p2p systems by default share what has been downloaded. Its reasonable to think that a significant number of people will share what they have downloaded whether its pirated or not. There are networks that have the idea of karma which lets you download in proportion to how much you share.

If you used an FTP server instead, you'd have a convenient little "read me" describing the copyright status of your content, granting explicit permission to download and mirror your content.

This is possible using digital signatures and catalogs like Bitzi and technologies for expressing licenses like the Creative Commons.

There's one simple way to change my opinion on this subject. Get the college kids and whomever to stop using P2P for widespread, large-scale piracy.

This is a matter for law enforcement. It is known that the copyright industry tracks IP addresses of those sharing on p2p networks and what is being shared, they can get court orders to make the ISP cooperate to go after end users. They are obviously biding their time, probably because its bad for business to sue your customers. But in Denmark end users have been pursued, so it is probably just a matter of time.

>This is a very distasteful way of expressing yourself.

So is ignoring the plague of lawlessness and piracy that Napster and its successors brought about. Turns my stomach, it does.

First I have not ignored "the plague of lawlessness", I very clearly stated that copyright laws should be enforced.

Second, I thought we were engaging in a civil discussion. You flamed ("full of shit") rather than address the ideas, I called you on it civilly while not returning your flames and continuing to engage your ideas. From this and your cracks about taking over the world I can see I was mistaken to do so.

If I produce a song and want it freely distributed, what must I do?
Go to creative commons.

I agree that copyrighted material shouldn't be freely distributed from an ethical standpoint.

If that's the way we're talking, then the RIAA have already won. There are plenty of legitimate circumstances to distribute a lot copyrighted material -- and that's not even getting into fair use yet. Consider examples in software, or other types of media.

It's not an issue of copyright per se, it's an issue of what's permitted by the license.

I thought the intent of his question was pretty obvious. He's noticed that readily-available media offerings aren't generally high-quality, but that there is a fair amount of good stuff floating around that's relatively freely available, and though he isn't sure what's involved yet, he'd like to put his metaphorical money where his proverbial mouth is and try to contribute to this pool of good watchable material.

In other words, "While there seem to be fewer and fewer worthwhile shows in the mainstream media (such as the unnamed show that has been canceled, and I think most slashdotters can guess what the likely quality of its replacement show will be) there seems to be a growing pool of good free material online, and I'd like to contribute. Has anyone here been involved in this? What do I need to know to participate?"

Yes, it IS a very general question, which contains a lot of smaller questions within it, but this is Slashdot, not rec.arts.video.online.bandwidth-questions or some similarly specific tech support forum. I think what the poster was hoping for is some discussion of all of the aspects so that he'll be able to formulate more specific questions and take them to more focussed forums. Besides - general or not, someone interested in improving the quality of available entertainment ought to be encouraged regardless of how much they already know about the subject, not told to go away until they already know most of what they need to do...

(I didn't at all get any sense that he wanted to continue the cancelled show, just that the cancelling of what he considered to be a good show was an indicator of the decline of "mainstream media" quality, which I think most of us can sympathise with.)

So, yes, all of the above, and more. Seems a perfectly valid and potentially informative topic for discussion here. A few of us occasionally read the more general "ask slashdot" discussions for general education ourselves...

So...to contribute what little I can:

Firstly, decent writing and acting (even for animation - hey, somebody has to do the voices) is the key to watchable material. This is probably already obvious to the person asking the question (as well as everyone else here) but it should be said.

As to the "internet distribution" portion of the question, one might contact the The Internet Archive and the folks at Creative Commons about hosting and licensing, if one's willing to release the material freely.

At this point I'll also throw in a nod to one of my "pet causes" - Ogg Theora which, if they get a bit more visible on the development of it (likely to happen in March, when the format freeze is supposedly scheduled, though the second Alpha release is due Real Soon Now. At the moment, though, development appears to be a "Monty Only" project that shows up as infrequent "chunks" of updates in CVS when official releases come out. At least news is starting to show up on the mailing list...) will supply a very nice no-license-hassle format for distribution.

Transforming the recordings to a wide variety of internet-ready formats can be done with MPlayer/MEncoder in combination with a few other tools (ffmpeg, mjpegtools, the aforementioned Ogg Theora), not to mention using mjpegtools' encoders to convert video dumped from MPlayer to VCD or SVCD format for viewing on standalone players.

Someone else will have to comment on technical issues of camera and recording media types most suitable for generating internet-ready material. In MY opinion, if one handles the rest of the matter well, it's probably possible to produce perfectly adequate "good amateur quality" internet videos with ordinary off-the-shelf video cameras and a halfway-decent digitizing card. Last time I attempted video capture it was from a VHS tape, with a BT878-based card and "streamer" from Xawtv to store as a relatively high quality mjpeg/pcm quicktime file [to allow > 2GB files] then dumped to mjpegtools to generate SVCDs.

Any other topics in this broad discussion I've missed?...

Right now we don't plan to get involved in software licensing at all. Instead, we'll concentrate on scholarship, film, literature, music, photography, and other kinds of creative works. To the extent that we'll deal with types of content that others are already building licenses for -- take the EFF's Open Audio License, for example -- we view that as a good thing. The more ways authors have to get their works out in the public sphere, the better.

Your recommendations may well apply to software, and in all honesty I would probably GPL any software I wrote which I thought had any usefulness at all to others. However, I feel differently about my writing -- I consider it more important and more personal, and though I am willing to post it online for others to read, I have a couple concerns.

Basically I don't want anyone to take credit for something I've written, and I don't want anyone to make a profit off of it if I am not also included in the profiting. I know that I gain these rights automatically whenever I create a work, but it is not entirely clear to the casual visitor/reader what happens to those rights once I've placed something online.

So the Creative Commons licenses provide a fast, headache-free way for me to share my works while also spelling out what my intentions are. For example, I selected the "Attribution, No Derivatives, Non-commercial Use" license for one of my plays.

Any reader curious about what rights have been granted can easily find out, and if a dispute arises, I can point them to a legally sound resource supporting my position.

This particular play was available online previously as a locked down PDF, which was not a solution I was particularly happy with, but which seemed workable at the time. I am much more comfortable with the present license, which incidentally forbides the very digital restrictions I felt the need to impose before.

This is no big loss, in my opinion. My goal is to share, not to police, and the licenses that Creative Commons offers help me achieve that goal in a satisfactory way.

Creative Commons could do a bit better if it linked to licenses that each selection was compatible with--and a bit better if it had a reverse lookup, where you could list the license of the source you want to use and you see your options for other licenses.

Something like this?

I have rarely seen so many +5 comments that didn't deserve their rating.

Where did you read that this site gives licenses for the U.S.? The only text that is specifically dependant on the U.S. law is the Public Domain Dedication. No other text mentions the United States of America.

Of course, some might wonder what about other legal systems? Well, there's a FAQ!

Yes, it would be nice to have the licenses, more than translated, adapted to other countries and their legal systems. At least for France, it shouldn't be too hard; the GPL has been analyzed by French jurists, and they consider it is directly usable (once translated) in French courts. The CC licenses don't seem to outlandish to the GPL (yes, I have read them) so I think translating should be enough for France at least.

I have rarely seen so many +5 comments that didn't deserve their rating.

Where did you read that this site gives licenses for the U.S.? The only text that is specifically dependant on the U.S. law is the Public Domain Dedication. No other text mentions the United States of America.

Of course, some might wonder what about other legal systems? Well, there's a FAQ!

Yes, it would be nice to have the licenses, more than translated, adapted to other countries and their legal systems. At least for France, it shouldn't be too hard; the GPL has been analyzed by French jurists, and they consider it is directly usable (once translated) in French courts. The CC licenses don't seem to outlandish to the GPL (yes, I have read them) so I think translating should be enough for France at least.

I have rarely seen so many +5 comments that didn't deserve their rating.

Where did you read that this site gives licenses for the U.S.? The only text that is specifically dependant on the U.S. law is the Public Domain Dedication. No other text mentions the United States of America.

Of course, some might wonder what about other legal systems? Well, there's a FAQ!

Yes, it would be nice to have the licenses, more than translated, adapted to other countries and their legal systems. At least for France, it shouldn't be too hard; the GPL has been analyzed by French jurists, and they consider it is directly usable (once translated) in French courts. The CC licenses don't seem to outlandish to the GPL (yes, I have read them) so I think translating should be enough for France at least.

Re:Who will use this?

I will, for one, and many others already have.

Although this seems like a fine idea in theory, I am having difficulty imagining many situations where people would use it, which would be useful to others.

There is already a bunch of material licensed under their licenses, and numerous other efforts to achieve similar results under which a great deal of good music and prose is licensed. Clearly there are many others who are having little difficulty in finding these sorts of free licenses useful.

It is not going to replace copyright for music or books (I realise these aren't mentioned, I'm just trying to think of some possible use - theirs are pretty crap and unlikely) for example - the industry wouldn't touch it for obvious reasons.

It isn't "replacing copyright" (though drastic copyright reform eliminating the government monopoly entitlements it grants with a more balanced "sales tax as creator royalty" scheme would be highly desirable), it is creating a license that, similar to the BSD License, the FDL, and the GPL, will facilitate a growing commons of material all creative people can use and build upon.

Finally, who gives a fuck about the "industry" as such. Their purposes are already served, and have been so by a century of corrupt copyright legislation bought and paid for from our inexpensively purchased "representatives" in congress. The cultural squatters of New York, Nashville, and Hollywood, and the cartels they have formed, are the reason that the "vast cultural wasteland" of television and the lack of cultural depth in modern society have become so obvious, and such obvious truisms that they have become cliches.

These free licenses aren't intended to benefit the entrenched "industry" any more than the GPL is designed to Benefit the Sun Microsystems and Microsoft's of the world. It is intended to benefit ARTISTS and CREATIVE PEOPLE, not cultural squatters and an industry that has denigrated the art into a mere product of mass production, filtered down to the lowest common denominator.

If it takes off at all, it would be for the benefit of amateurs only, but then, what's the point?

First this is nonsense. One could have made the same inane (and in retrospect obviously incorrect) argument against the GPL, which has benefitted both amateurs (such as Linus Torvalds when he first began writing the Linux kernel) and professionals (such as IBM).

Likewise, the Creative Commons will empower amateurs (such as myself) and professionals. No, it won't empower Time Warner any more than the GPL empowers Microsoft, but it will empower Indy music and film makers (who are often professionals and not amateurs, though they often serve as a bridge in getting new and talented filmmakers noticed).

Second, every professional was at one time in their career an amateur. A great deal of amateur material is crap, but a great deal is also excellent. Having that material available as part of a commons, free to be distributed, improved upon, and incorporated into other, grander works is a very valuable thing to artists, to society, and to the health of our cultural heritage itself. No, it doesn't benefit Disney and Time-Warner, it benefits the tens of thousands of talented artists Disney, Time-Warner, and others of their ilk have traditionally trampled under their feet, and in addition it benefits the rest of us who enjoy and admire such works.

And that is very, very good thing, tripe and propoganda from the "industry" at its shills and astroturfers notwithstanding.

How often do poeple on Slashdot talk about turning their friends, kids, granny to Linux? Have they ever thought about making them read the GPL before they touch any Linux?

I for one would suffice with a license somewhat in this wording:

"You may do with this software and sourcecode whatever you want, as long as you give me credit for anything that is based on or makes use of this software."

I think this is a lot more considerate than Creative Common's version of basically the same license.

But i think the trouble is that this selection system will ultimately invite people not to think of the differences between the licences.

Oh yeah? How so? There's a page that summarizes very clearly the differences between the licenses. Besides, even the legalese is easy to read!

Here's yet another parent that doesn't belong to the +5 level.

Um...according to this, some of the people involved include Lawrence Lessig and James Boyle and some other folks that you may or may not have heard of. These are some of the brightest legal minds and IP experts in the country.

I'd use a license from these people WELL before I'd ever use a license written by RMS.

Still too much legalese for my liking. Just look at their Public Domain declaration. Give me a break.

I think no license is user-friendly if it can't be understood and bothered to be read by a 10-year old. Consider the fact that legally ANYONE SHOULD read and understand the license of every single piece of software they use and the usage agreement of every single website they visit that has one. In present time this is simply impossible.

Unlike the GNU GPL, Creative Commons licenses are not be designed for software, but rather for other kinds of creative works: websites, scholarship, music, film, photography, literature, courseware, etc.

There is a pretty good FAQ too.

Unlike the GNU GPL, Creative Commons licenses are not be designed for software, but rather for other kinds of creative works: websites, scholarship, music, film, photography, literature, courseware, etc.

There is a pretty good FAQ too.

Why do people insist on using `!=' in such a way?

The expression "!=" is derived from the C language. Slashdot users use "!=" instead of "isn't the same as" to save fifteen bytes because Slashdot limits comment subjects to 50 bytes.

(You point out the `unlawful search and seaz

Your comment got cut off right where it got interesting. Please continue.

Btw, how come all this DRM junk seems to be for corporations only?

Because you need to buy the encoder. The major publishers (RIAA, MPAA, etc) are rich enough to afford to pay the digital restrictions management companies for the research and development of DRM technologies. Once the R&D has been paid off, the price will fall to where anybody can buy a one-seat license for the encoder software off the shelf at a local computer store.

Open DRM tools are in development as well. Creative Commons is creating an open digital format for restrictions description.

Lessig started a project called Creative Commons to assist media producers that want to share their works under open licenses.

Myself, I volunteer technical support and media production to my local Independent Media Center. In addition to running an open publishing website where the community can publish stories and multimedia, we host talks, film screenings, work with the local radio station station, and do media trainings.

Hi, I'm the guy who made the Lessig's Challenge website. I'd like to address some of the concerns which have been raised with the idea.

To my doubters: This isn't about a fundraising drive for the EFF (though I think you should join. Did you know the EFF only has 7,000 members? You can make your voice heard in the way the EFF operates if you join). It isn't about me buying cool stuff and writing it off as hurting the MPAA.

It's about supporting a different way to do things than the MPAA and RIAA. They want to lock up content and charge you every time you view it. They want to prevent you from viewing DVDs on Linux. And we help them do it. Every time you buy a CD, every time you go to a movie, you help them take away your freedom.

It's time to fight back. We can fight back not only by giving money to the EFF and the ACLU and the Free Software Foundation and Digital Consumer -- orgainizations which will fight against the media oligarchy -- but also by helping those artists and programmers who are outside the system. If they can make a living without turning to the RIAA or MPAA, the media oligarchy will not survive for long.

I'm not asking you to boycott these orgainizations entirely because it's not really plausable. Everyone likes to go see a movie now and then, everyone likes to listen to the radio or buy a few CDs. What I'm challenging you to do is to keep track of how much you're giving to the oligarchy (to take away your freedom) and counter that with a donation to people who will fight against that.

Here are a few suggestions:

• EFF
• ACLU
• Free Software Foundation
• Project Gutenberg
• Creative Commons
• Local bands in your hometown
• Your favorite online comic strips
• Unsigned musicians online
• Artists you like
• An open source project you appreciate
• A weblog or news site that provides you with fresh, interesting stories daily
• Political canidates who will fight against the MPAA and RIAA

The list goes on and on.

Creative Commons is an effort to develop technical standards which will allow various flavors of "free" content to be identified.

The file sharing networks themselves are agnostic on the matter of how the owner of a work intends for it to be distributed. The software justs see files and shares them, it can't tell the difference.

How do you know? My understanding is what motivated most the people in these ventures wasn't a guaranteed monopoly, but rather it's own value?

It doesn't matter, since you cannot prove the reverse either. I'm willing the accept the idea that people are more motivated by the creative process than any monitary reward, but you can't prove that copyright is unnecessary for the authors of creative works to be paid for their work. If you choose to place all of your work under open/free terms, then by all means do, and feel free to advocate the same to others, but don't tell all authors everywhere that they must give up all copyright. Why? Because you say? Was somebody appointed dictator when I wasn't looking?

The fact is that copyright exists, and for the US it is explicitely mentioned in the constitution. The legal framework that supoorts the GPL is based on copyright as well. You can't have one without the other.

There is no sense in which the arguments made in this case weaken the prospects for free software. To try to go the purist route with this is counterproductive, and IMHO stomps all over the right of individuals to choose. Lesig and people close to him support the Creative Commons and actively encourages people to release works under open/free licenses. You should know who you are talking about before criticizing.

Soon we'll be releasing some licenses to the public which will enable artists to do exactly what you need - mark their content according to how they want it to be distributed. We don't believe in only having the black and white options of just copyright or public domain. While those are good, we're going to create some more differences, such as "non-commercially redistributable", "derivatives allowed", "no derivatives allowed", etc.

It doesn't solve your problem *today*, but it will start to help soon. You can subscribe to our mailing list to stay informed.

Soon we'll be releasing some licenses to the public which will enable artists to do exactly what you need - mark their content according to how they want it to be distributed. We don't believe in only having the black and white options of just copyright or public domain. While those are good, we're going to create some more differences, such as "non-commercially redistributable", "derivatives allowed", "no derivatives allowed", etc.

It doesn't solve your problem *today*, but it will start to help soon. You can subscribe to our mailing list to stay informed.

What artists are you aware of (popular or not) who have come out in favor of music-swapping?

Me!!

Although, with the really lame license I have, I'm desperately wishing for the Creative Commons to get the heck on with it and put their license generator online!

-Send the story to a coworker who doesn't agree with you,

-send a copy to your congressman,

-update your sig to reflect your beliefs,

-get a Free the Mouse bumpersticker and wear it,

-give money to the EFF,

-release a piece of music, writing, photo, idea you came up with to Creative Commons.

-Send a thoughtful letter to the editor to 3 different publications you read.

C'mon people, we don't need more witty remarks.

FREE THE MOUSE!!!!

From the site: "...help people dedicate their creative works to the public domain or license them on terms more generous than copyright. Unlike the GPL, Creative Commons licenses will not be designed for software, but rather for other kinds of creative works: websites, scholarship, music, film, photography, literature, courseware, etc. "

For those of you who don't want to download the massive 8mb presentation here are the links at the end.

eldred.cc

creativecommons.org

publicknowledge.org

eff.org

lessig.org

posted anonymously for humanitarian purposes.

You could apply a similar system to ordinary EULAs. If the license grants you new rights, use a picture of lady liberty. If the license restricts you more than copyright alone, use a picture of lady liberty in hand cuffs. If the license allows spying, use a picture of someone in the shower as seen through binoculars. If the license allows the copyright holder to change the terms, use a picture of the devil holding up the contract.

Do you think the Bowie machine has the power to make the music industry see the light?" No. But the man has my respect for setting an example and putting more than idle chatter behind it. His bowieart.com project, for example, is another way of using his power to give back to the kinds of people he was and hung out with (art students and new artists). He's an expert at the uses of media, and open to trying new ideas. I think the Creative Commons initiative is also a good similarly-minded idea to look at.

I was thinking about this only 3 or 4 days ago.....

hehe. Ah well, I'm glad somebody else is doing it really, I have more than enough on my plate right now. Perhaps they should check out the Creative Commons?

Great. A big hurrah for the Open Content Network and the Creative Commons.

Artificial Minds will be able to spread all over the 'Net. They are already at:
http://mind.sourceforge.net/index.html
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html
http://users.resentment.org/ai/jsaimind.html
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/jsaimind.html
http://victoria.tc.ca/~uj797/jsaimind.html