Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lessig Proposes "Creative Commons"

Posted by timothy on from the please-resurrect-writenow dept.

cmuncey writes: "Lawrence Lessig's newest effort is profiled this morning in a SFGate.com article this morning. Creative Commons will offer customizable flexible intellectual property licenses that can be used by artists, writers, and others in moving their works from copyright to public domain in a controlled manner. The aricle also cites plans to create a 'conservancy' for what looks like orphanware. This is a joint work of Lessig and people from MIT, Duke, Harvard and Villanova."

7 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters: by base3 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    That's nice that you want us to move our intellectual property into the public domain in an "orderly" manner once it's stopped making money for us.

    What do you have to offer us to:

    - pay us for what you want--it must have value since you want it in the public domain, and it's our duty to extract that value for our shareholders.

    - protect us from liability should anyone manage to damage themselves or their own companies with the product you want us to give away.

    Unfortunately, there aren't easy answers to those objections. The answer isn't some kind of volunatry feel-good way to have corporations give to the public domain, because it's not going to happen. The answer is to make copyright for a "limited time," as the framers intended. Not for 95 years when 5 years is an eternity in <cliche>Internet time<cliche>.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    1. Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters: by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The answer is to make copyright for a "limited time," as the framers intended. Not for 95 years when 5 years is an eternity in "Internet time"."

      How about software enters the public domain once a compnay stops providing tech support for it plus, say 3 years.

      This would certainly put the stop on the tread mill of constant upgrades. [smile]

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    2. Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters: by dgroskind · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However Corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money and are not in and of themselves moral entities.

      No less an authority than Peter Drucker disputes this statement. He says: "...no financial man will ever understand business because financial people think a company makes money. A company makes shoes, and no financial man understands that. They think money is real. Shoes are real. Money is an end result. What is a business? The only function of a business is to create customer [value] and to innovate."

      He considers profit "the test of the validity" of the business's activities. Earning a profit, it says here, is how one measures the firm's efficiency in fulfilling its fundamental purpose, namely, to create a customer.

      Corporations have a role to play in society so the ultimate question is is not what the purpose of the corporation is, but what the purpose of society is. Corporations cannot achieve a profit and at the same time thwart the objectives of society in which they exist.

      The idea that work and human endeavor have no higher purpose than making money is a pretty miserable philosophy of life and has never been a sufficient foundation for a society or a corporation.

    3. Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters: by deebaine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've never heard that incorporation was offered as a quid pro quo in exchange for doing something for the public good. I'll be interested to investigate if it did in fact start that way. In any event, it has (d)evolved from that intent.

      I run an LLC, and I guarantee you that when we filed with the state, there was no understanding that we had any duty to see to the public good. In fact, most of the communication consisted of a stamp on our Certificate of Organization. Hence, it is difficult for me to see what duty I have to act for the public good from a legal standpoint relating to our filing with the state. Clearly there are ethical reasons to act for the public good, but if you were to threaten to take me to court because I wasn't fulfilling an implied agreement to act primarily in the public's best interest, frankly, I don't think I'd lose much sleep.

      Do you have a reference for the implied agreement to act in the public interest? I'm interested to know more.

      -db

  2. Makes sense by PowerTroll+5000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't part of copyright control the right to release of said control? This makes it easy to precisely define what can and can't be done. Sometimes people want full protection, while others don't mind some other uses.

    --

    I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.

  3. The Other Question Is ... by laetus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The other question is, if their license-du-jour you create online doesn't stand up in court, do you have any legal redress against Creative Commons?

    I bet they'll be paying particular attention to creating fine print that says, "use our licenses at your own risk."

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
  4. Enforcement?? by scarhill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So the poor, Starving Artist picks out the Creative Commons license that meets her need. For the moment, assume the license is ironclad. Then, mean old Megacorp comes along and steals Starving Artist's work. How is she going to enforce her license? Will Creative Commons maintain a staff of lawyers to work license infringment cases pro-bono? Do we trust that lawyers will take these cases on a contingency fee basis?

    Unless there's some answer, the license won't mean much. Lessig is a very smart guy. It will be interesting to see his full proposal on how he expects this to work.