Slashdot Mirror

Here is a bunch of links about Computer Ethics from when I was researching about it. The google video link (last one on this list) is particularly interesting. Computer ethics is actually a university research topic! http://www.brook.edu/its/cei/cei_hp.htm http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/ http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/rccs/resources/teaching/teaching_mono/moor/moor_definition.html http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-computer/ http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/ProfessionalEthics.html http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/hackers.html http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4279094 http://cyberethics.cbi.msstate.edu/ http://www.oekonux.org/texts/copykillsmusic.html http://www.progilibre.com/Open-Source-Alternative-ou-fausse-route-_a350.html http://www.osalt.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License http://creativecommons.org/ http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html http://www.itc.virginia.edu/policy/ethics.html http://www.brook.edu/its/cei/overview/Ten_Commanments_of_Computer_Ethics.htm http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm http://www.ieee.org/portal/site http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-3088012854941915784&q=computer+ethics

CmdrTaco eat my asshole
slob my knob then finish with a rimjob

This work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike License V3.0 United States
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode

I mean really.

Free The Art (Sep 29/07)
Copyright 2007, drew Roberts

Free the Art and
Free the Artists
Let's break loose and
Let's get started

Change the world and
Make it better
There may be crying but
We'll cry together

Tired of waiting on
Promised changes
Come together and
Let's rearrange it

This work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike License V3.0 United States
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode

Picassa runs pretty well in WINE

I'm not looking for another heavy weight image handling application. Got quite a few of those already, and all available GPL or similar. Flickr was cool because they published their webservice API, allowing others to create simple image uploaders or plugins for existing applications.

But for me, Flickr's main attraction was the ability to share images using a Creative Commons license. It means I can use other peoples images as resources in my websites, which in turn encourages me to share some of my images with the community. I haven't see an alternative that promotes Creative Commons in the same way that Flickr does.

I don't use Flickr to show off my images in a web album, I use it to share (attribution, non-commercial) my images with others who have shared their images with the community.
I'm not sure if Microsoft would understand that.

If you're serious of showing off your pictures, give it a shot.

While you posted Anon, I wish I still had mod points to mod the comment you just made up. You summarized it very well.

In the end, each and every person participating in their economic ecosystem is contributing and funding this sort of insanity
either through direct funding through purchases or through network effect from the people trading it illicitly.

Just say "no" just like they tell you to do with drugs- for it's little better, really.

I've found that there's a lot better batch of people making their music available solely
through places for free like Creative Commons or Jamendo
and through online for pay venues like PayPlay.fm where they charge a minimal fee and
give out selected freebies from most bands for free under a "karma points" system. I've just found out about Jamendo,
and I've been buying a LOT of MP3 tracks from the Renaissance/Celtic performer crowd that's taken to distributing much
of their stuff via PayPlay.fm.

In the end, I think a quote from Wargames best sums up my feelings in regards to the RIAA game:

"A strange game. The only winning move is to not play."

Stop consuming RIAA music. Don't pay for it. Don't download it. When artists learn that it is suicide (in terms of finances and exposure) to make a pact with the RIAA, they will release music ala Radiohead; make more money and reach more fans.

Start looking for new music here: Creative Commons. When you find something cool, tell your friends. CC music is sharable by definition, so you'll face no problems.

RIAA is a media company. Don't hate the media, BE(come) the media!

"Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."

from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ (same as v.2.0 incidentally)

See section 4(c) of the license, which is ambiguous (and contains a typo "Ssection"). We must supply various attribution data if supplied or specified but how and where is it specified, not necessarily with the work. This information should be required by the license to be in the meta-data attached to the file or specifically stated visually-alongside the cc license marking.

So seriously, you may well be right with the first two issues but this third concept is foreign to me and I'm sure many lawyers would be interested in how you 'revoked?' a license. What the?

I think a lot of these issues would be resolved by making it "no backsies, all derivatives must be CC, tough if you want to use them no lawsuits plz k thanx bye." And that's the best legalese I know.

The specific example was an Australian ad agency using a photo from flickr under a CC license, without getting proper model release. The CC FAQ explains that a model release is also needed. Even without the explanation, the Australian ad agency certainly ought to know about any rules about model release that may apply in Australia.

Unfortunately, someone very early in the discussion on Flick (after kid discovered her photo was used in Australia) mentioned that another model had got US$ 100.000 in compensation. Such numbers can destroy the ability to think, so the parents decided to sue Creative Commons for having written the license. You can read CC's take on it.

The specific example was an Australian ad agency using a photo from flickr under a CC license, without getting proper model release. The CC FAQ explains that a model release is also needed. Even without the explanation, the Australian ad agency certainly ought to know about any rules about model release that may apply in Australia.

Unfortunately, someone very early in the discussion on Flick (after kid discovered her photo was used in Australia) mentioned that another model had got US$ 100.000 in compensation. Such numbers can destroy the ability to think, so the parents decided to sue Creative Commons for having written the license. You can read CC's take on it.

Are you referring to the Virgin Mobile case?

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680

Well you obviously can't be *sure* I (or someone else) won't run off with it and make millions of dollars, but you can of course release it under a suitable license which would make it illegal for me to do so. I'd suggest something from http://www.opensource.org/licenses or http://creativecommons.org/ if you want.

As for figuring out how it works - well, that just takes time, reading,and thinking; just how much is yet to be determined :D

Anyone remember CDDB? There are other examples. I've seen some recent positive press for Wikipedia in the recent announcement that the code will be GPL.... it's another step in the right direction.

Wikipedia's volunteer contributed text has always been GFDL.[1] What's happening now is that the FSF is making the new GFDL compatible with the new Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license so that Wikipedia's content under the new FSF GFDL can play nice with CCSA 3.5.[2]

If there really are Wikipedia administrators using their black helicopters to shoot non vandal editors (possible, tho I haven't seen the cites), and the millions of good people editing aren't stopping the bad administrators; the GFDL license allows anyone to fork Wikipedia content and then prevent the evil administrators from joining that project.

Use all means necessary to prevent this sort of behavior from becoming acceptable (i.e. "just the way things are") in Canada. Support independent recording artists and smaller labels who don't engage in draconian contract measures. Don't buy the mass-produced, pop culture oriented crap that's on sale at your local Huge Media Outlet. All you're doing is feeding the legal budget of the lobbying arms of major recording labels.

Support other creative artists who choose to license their work under Creative Commons style licenses. My personal policy for one site I manage is that all article content must be CC licensed.

Most importantly, tell people about your views. Ordinary people on the street. People you work with. Anybody, everybody. You enjoy a system of government where you're allowed to speak your mind... that's sort of a "use it or lose it" proposition in my opinion.

Does this mean you should stop contacting your elected officials. Hell, no. But take your personal, proactive action of your own instead of just waiting around for your elected leadership to make good decisions for you.

Support authors who publish their content using Creative Commons style licenses. What little writing I do is published using CC licenses, Wikipedia is moving to CC, and I never would have even heard of Cory Doctorow years ago (still one of my favorites) if not for CC.

I'm considering licensing the majority of the content on my educational resources site under a CC license. Seriously, support these kinds of effort at (1) making high-quality published works accessible to a broader audience, and (2) supporting authors who are willing to try new business models to earn a living.

... but I am as confident as I am that the Sun will rise tomorrow that it will be safe from terrorists. After all, we have the children to think about.

July 12, 2005

Copyright © 2005 Michael David Crawford.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

It seems that David Clark, who led the development of the Internet way back in the '70's - did you know there even was a '70's? - wants to create a whole new Internet that will fix many of the problems the current Internet is plagued with. The New Internet's engineers will be much more careful this time around to make sure it works better than the first one did.

I'm afraid, though, that the engineers are not the only ones who will be deciding how our New Internet will work.

If one is able to find any privacy or anonymity in this New Internet, it will be because of some undiscovered security hole, which will be quickly repaired, rather than any kind of conscious design decision. Probably one reason they are accepting proposals before rolling it out is to avoid the sort of accidental security holes that enable pr0n, peer-to-peer filesharing and left-wing political activism.

Microsoft, a leading contributor both to this nation's technology base and to the campaign coffers of its leaders, will embrace this new technology and extend it in such a way that the development and dissemination of Open Source software will be, if not mathematically and physically impossible, at least as intractible as factoring a 2048-bit public key.

Imagine, if you will, Trusted Computing implemented at the router level, in such a way that any packets that go farther than one hop are certified not only to support protocols whose patent licenses are fully paid-up and on file with the legal department in Redmond, but whose content is compliant with the Windows standard. The faintest whisp of a Public License, GNU or otherwise, will result in the dropping not only of the individual packet, not only in the cancellation of the entire file transmission, but, within microseconds, the reporting of the physical location of the offending server to responsible law enforcement personnel. The identities of its rogue administrators will be fetched instantly from the database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. (You will have to submit fingerprints and DNA samples to obtain a Windows server license, as after all, Internet servers can be used to disseminate explosives r

... but I am as confident as I am that the Sun will rise tomorrow that it will be safe from terrorists. After all, we have the children to think about.

July 12, 2005

Copyright © 2005 Michael David Crawford.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

It seems that David Clark, who led the development of the Internet way back in the '70's - did you know there even was a '70's? - wants to create a whole new Internet that will fix many of the problems the current Internet is plagued with. The New Internet's engineers will be much more careful this time around to make sure it works better than the first one did.

I'm afraid, though, that the engineers are not the only ones who will be deciding how our New Internet will work.

If one is able to find any privacy or anonymity in this New Internet, it will be because of some undiscovered security hole, which will be quickly repaired, rather than any kind of conscious design decision. Probably one reason they are accepting proposals before rolling it out is to avoid the sort of accidental security holes that enable pr0n, peer-to-peer filesharing and left-wing political activism.

Microsoft, a leading contributor both to this nation's technology base and to the campaign coffers of its leaders, will embrace this new technology and extend it in such a way that the development and dissemination of Open Source software will be, if not mathematically and physically impossible, at least as intractible as factoring a 2048-bit public key.

Imagine, if you will, Trusted Computing implemented at the router level, in such a way that any packets that go farther than one hop are certified not only to support protocols whose patent licenses are fully paid-up and on file with the legal department in Redmond, but whose content is compliant with the Windows standard. The faintest whisp of a Public License, GNU or otherwise, will result in the dropping not only of the individual packet, not only in the cancellation of the entire file transmission, but, within microseconds, the reporting of the physical location of the offending server to responsible law enforcement personnel. The identities of its rogue administrators will be fetched instantly from the database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. (You will have to submit fingerprints and DNA samples to obtain a Windows server license, as after all, Internet servers can be used to disseminate explosives r

I'm sure a hardcore fan of the CC suite would be able to explain the differences between the CC-BY license, the CC-BY-SA license, and the CC-SA license. All three allow commercial re-usage (unlike the CC-SA-NC license... or is that the CC-BY-SA-NC... or simply CC-NC?) And these aren't the only Creative Commons licenses that are released by this group.

Something not often mentioned in these discussions is that the FSF recommends that you put in the "or any future version" clause. The Creative Commons licenses, in contrast, require it -- since version 2.0, they have included this upgradeability in the text of the license. (See section 4b: version 2.0, 2.5, 3.0.)

So any work licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0 or 2.5 is automatically also licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. And 3.0 goes even further, in that a work may be relicensed under any other license that Creative Commons deems to be compatible (although there aren't any of these yet.)

Something not often mentioned in these discussions is that the FSF recommends that you put in the "or any future version" clause. The Creative Commons licenses, in contrast, require it -- since version 2.0, they have included this upgradeability in the text of the license. (See section 4b: version 2.0, 2.5, 3.0.)

So any work licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0 or 2.5 is automatically also licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. And 3.0 goes even further, in that a work may be relicensed under any other license that Creative Commons deems to be compatible (although there aren't any of these yet.)

Something not often mentioned in these discussions is that the FSF recommends that you put in the "or any future version" clause. The Creative Commons licenses, in contrast, require it -- since version 2.0, they have included this upgradeability in the text of the license. (See section 4b: version 2.0, 2.5, 3.0.)

So any work licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0 or 2.5 is automatically also licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. And 3.0 goes even further, in that a work may be relicensed under any other license that Creative Commons deems to be compatible (although there aren't any of these yet.)

Something not often mentioned in these discussions is that the FSF recommends that you put in the "or any future version" clause. The Creative Commons licenses, in contrast, require it -- since version 2.0, they have included this upgradeability in the text of the license. (See section 4b: version 2.0, 2.5, 3.0.)

So any work licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0 or 2.5 is automatically also licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. And 3.0 goes even further, in that a work may be relicensed under any other license that Creative Commons deems to be compatible (although there aren't any of these yet.)

That is exactly what I was thinking of. I heard exactly what you present when I heard RMS talk about copyright a while back.

After reading the clarifications, this is the license in question. It certainly seems to be something RMS would approve of.

the op is no longer correct. the article has been updated to say that wikipedia will be cc-compatible, not that it will switch to it. to quote:

Contrary to the old title of this post (thanks to Larry for the clarification) Wikipedia is not switching to CC. It actually made a deal allowing the community to relicense the content of the wikis under a BY-SA license. So it's now up to the Wikipedians to choose whether they do or not.

this is a bit of legal-hair-splitting (standard ianal disclaimer), but it does mean that there there shouldn't be any legal issues with converting prior content.

also it seems that the cc by-sa license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ is basically equivalent to the gfdl. it is not "public-domain"ing the content, nor is it "bsd"ing the content. it just seems to make it a less-software-centric license. (anyone else, please feel free to correct.)

"because people like attribution"
What OSI License lets people keep attribution ?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/

Does a BSD license or any other OSI license let people keep attribution?

If I showed some Windows IT Folks who never saw / heard RedHat linux a copy of CentOS, where CentOS replaces all "RedHat" names in their stuff, how would someone know it event mainly came from RedHat, without further research?

Maybe I am thinking that a fork can copy 100% of the code and then release the source as well, the the 1st party would loose the attribution?
Thanks,
Mark

Some Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) music providers: Jamendo = http://www.jamendo.com/en/ Search CC = http://search.creativecommons.org/# OpSound = http://opsound.org/ w00tw0t0 Records http://w00tw0t0.net/ and a small internet Radio only CC music http://digilander.libero.it/freemusicstyle/ These are FREE and LEGAL. There is no need to pay anyone and sometimes, depending on the license, you are free to elaborate or even profit. So the estimated cost is "how much you want to donate". The quality is good if compared to the pieces of Britney Spears (for instance) but you won't easily find any boy band. As long as we know they are a marketing product and not real music. I know this is slightly offtopic, but I'll be glad if someone visits those sites and gets inspiration.

creative commons has a search built into their site.
http://www.creativecommons.org/

magnatune has music you can pay for or not.
http://www.magnatune.com/

opsound has creative commons licensed music
http://www.opsound.org/

and, of course, my favorite, Binary Beats has non-RIAA music
http://www.binarybeats.com/

http://jamendo.com/ has a lot of creative commons licensed music. http://creativecommons.org/ has a search engine by which you can find creative commons licensed music (RIAA/DRM free), though I believe it may use the google backend.

~hakware

Seems like most people mentioned all the other sources I knew of... though there is also Creative Commons Audio.

Not too much stuff here but it's all free: http://stash.nugs.net/stash.asp.

http://www.redferret.net/pmwiki/pmwiki.php

Even Lars Ulrich has softened up and offered live Metallica concert downloads for free.

P.S. Check out the music video in my sig while you're at it... it's a monologue about destroying technology by a rapper from the year 3030.

That's great news--I hope you do join. One of the things I enjoy about Citizendium because I enjoy writing, is the ability to contribute significantly to new articles.

The license is still under consideration but will be decided this month. There is no doubt it will be one of the free licenses (looking to be CC-by-nc for original content but that could change in the final decision).

The time taken to pick a license I believe is for several reasons: 1) No-one near the top sees themselves as a license expert. 2) It's awkward to change a license once it's been set so it's best to get it right first time 3) there is a desire for meaningful feedback from the community which is not really been possible until a certain state of maturity has been reached (which is probably the case now). Having read some of the arguments for and against certain licenses I can see why it is not a simple decision.

I am not familiar with that license but it does have a really long name.

it's one of the creative commons family of licenses.

more details here.

Here are some resources for you:

• Creative Commons Search
• Jamendo - CC music distributed via BitTorrent and eMule
• My own piano music - you could really help me out if you shared it on the Internet
• The Mutopia Project - CC and public domain sheet music

Here are some resources for you:

• Creative Commons Search
• Jamendo - CC music distributed via BitTorrent and eMule
• My own piano music - you could really help me out if you shared it on the Internet
• The Mutopia Project - CC and public domain sheet music

Looks like someone finally got a chance to see "Good Copy, Bad Copy".
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7727

Nice non sequitur. Creative Commons licenses are not software licenses at all .

Just to note that while there are many comments saying that the photographer shouldn't have permitted Virgin to use the photo of the teenager commercially, the licence makes no mention of selling in the description...

Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence used at the time.

What is implied from the selection of licences available on the site, is that you can use the photo commercially because it doesn't have the non-commercial restriction. When you're selling photos from other's works, it is especially important that you understand the legal implications before doing so.

Just to note that while there are many comments saying that the photographer shouldn't have permitted Virgin to use the photo of the teenager commercially, the licence makes no mention of selling in the description...

Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence used at the time.

What is implied from the selection of licences available on the site, is that you can use the photo commercially because it doesn't have the non-commercial restriction. When you're selling photos from other's works, it is especially important that you understand the legal implications before doing so.

Creative Commons Notice

Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this license. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.Creative Commons

And, of course much more relevant:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ

Q: I don't like the way a person has used my work in a derivative work or included it in a collective work; what can I do?

A: If you do not like the way that a person has made a derivative work or incorporated your work into a collective work, under the Creative Commons licenses, you may request removal of your name from the derivative work or the collective work. In addition, the copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US) grant creators "moral rights" which may provide you with some redress if a derivative work represents a "derogatory treatment" of your work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to "derogatory treatment" of their work; "derogatory treatment" is typically defined as "distortion or mutilation" of the work or treatment, which is "prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author." All Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) leave moral rights unaffected. This means that an original author may be able to take action against a derivative work that infringes the moral right that protects against derogatory treatment. Of course, not all derivative works that a creator does not like will be considered "derogatory."

If the photographer made the picture available without the girl's consent, he is at fault. There's no doubt about that.

However, you can't just take a CC licensed picture of a person and do anything with it. Considering that the tag line makes an implicit statement about the girl's sex life (or absence of a sex life), the lawsuit against Virgin is not frivolous. Hell, she could sue Virgin even if she had put the picture under the Creative commons herself.

"I suspect this is will be the primary point of failure for the lawsuit. If Virgin choose to fight this, then a counter suit against the photographer for failing in their duty of care to get a model release while offering the photo to be licensed for commercial use will bring some serious pressure upon him."

I doubt it, unless it was a v1.0 license. That license made such assurances iirc. The current licenses specifically disclaim such.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode

5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer

UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ANY RIGHTS HELD IN THE LICENSED WORK BY THE LICENSOR. THE LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MARKETABILITY, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Compared to the 1.0 license:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode

5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer

      1. By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
                  1. Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments;
                  2. The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third party.
      2. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS LICENSE OR OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING OR REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE WORK IS LICENSED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE CONTENTS OR ACCURACY OF THE WORK.

So, unless Flickr was using the 1.0 license at the time?...

Oh, and this bit from the /. post:

"'The lawsuit, filed in Dallas late yesterday, names Virgin Mobile USA LLC, its Australian counterpart, and Creative Commons Corp, a Massachusetts nonprofit that licenses sharing of Flickr photos, as defendants."

CC does not license sharing of Flickr photos... Flickr chooses to let people avail themselves of the CC licenses to license their own photos. Flickr doesn't license those photots and CC doesn't, the photographers do.

all the best,

drew

"I suspect this is will be the primary point of failure for the lawsuit. If Virgin choose to fight this, then a counter suit against the photographer for failing in their duty of care to get a model release while offering the photo to be licensed for commercial use will bring some serious pressure upon him."

I doubt it, unless it was a v1.0 license. That license made such assurances iirc. The current licenses specifically disclaim such.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode

5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer

UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ANY RIGHTS HELD IN THE LICENSED WORK BY THE LICENSOR. THE LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MARKETABILITY, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Compared to the 1.0 license:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode

5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer

      1. By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
                  1. Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments;
                  2. The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third party.
      2. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS LICENSE OR OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING OR REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE WORK IS LICENSED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING THE CONTENTS OR ACCURACY OF THE WORK.

So, unless Flickr was using the 1.0 license at the time?...

Oh, and this bit from the /. post:

"'The lawsuit, filed in Dallas late yesterday, names Virgin Mobile USA LLC, its Australian counterpart, and Creative Commons Corp, a Massachusetts nonprofit that licenses sharing of Flickr photos, as defendants."

CC does not license sharing of Flickr photos... Flickr chooses to let people avail themselves of the CC licenses to license their own photos. Flickr doesn't license those photots and CC doesn't, the photographers do.

all the best,

drew