Lessig Proposes "Creative Commons"

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."

Comments

Some more information

[cmuncey]

There's an .pdf article with some interesting ideas linked to this at Lessig's site - Reclaiming a Commons

Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters:

[base3]

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>.

Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters:

[paulbd]

and it's our duty to extract that value for our shareholders actually, not quite. when your corporation was given its charter, there was an implication that it was given for the good of the public. presumably, your corporation was likely to perform some public good, in return for which we (the public) decided to remove personal responsibility from the company owners and controllers. you therefore have a primary duty to perform a public good, and if you cease to do so, we should remove your corporate charter and allow you to act as privately owned business with full financial and legal culpability. once you make it clear your corporation is living up to the charter, then you can focus on the secondary duties towards your shareholders.

Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters:

[elfkicker]

Good points. I think you can make a pretty simple case for both questions.

1) You've reached a point where you cannot profit from that property any longer. By releasing it, you allow other people to use it, and perhaps create a new market for that property. This can be beneficial because you are already the formost expert on the property if new profitable opportunities come up. You may alos have the option of entering back into the game with duel licensing.

2) Seems like every peice of software I've ever used disclaims liability right up front. I think the courts would be even more understanding if you're giving it away. You get what you pay for sometimes.

I personally see little reason in not opening up your IP once you're done with it. Normally by the time you'd want to, the cat is out of the bag and there's very little secret. Just holding it hostage for the abaility to sue infringers seems like a rather weak plan to me.

Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters:

[Alien54]

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]

Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters:

[paulbd]

Corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money this is a common misconception. people may decide to form a corporation for the sole purpose of making money, but people cannot create a corporation without the agreement of the state. the state agrees to remove personal and legal financial responsibility from the owners because it is convinced that the public good will be served by so doing (e.g. that the company will accomplish things, offer services etc. that it would not without this legal allowance). without a corporate charter, company owners are legal liable for all actions of their company, which is generally considered to be a bit restricting on what they may consider doing. so, no, corporations do not exist for the sole purpose of making money. they exist because at some point in the past, people decided it was in the public interest to allow them to exist. if a corporation's existence does not serve the public interest, then it is entirely legal to retract its charter. that this is rarely done says more about politics than anything else.

The Other Question Is ...

[laetus]

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."

That's another whole problem

[drew_kime]

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

The fact that our current legal system does nothing to discourage frivolous lawsuits is the real problem here. I agree that it will be raised, and that it is a fact of life. But that's not a problem with copyright law, it's a problem with tort law.

Tragedy of the creative commons

[argoff]

I don't mean to flame, but I think he's in denial. It does not look at what's going on from a pragmatic point of view. There are people out there who actually think that leveraging intellectual properties to their extremes are what the internet and the information age is all about. (Sort of aken to the days of those who thought that the industrial revolution was all about leveraging inventions like the cotton-gyn to extend their plantations to be thousands of times bigger) They were/are simply so dilusioned that we can almost be assured that there will be no compromizing till the bitter end.

As long as this attitude is in place we will continue to have DMCA pushers, and they will not back off on their irrational demands that all information be treated like peoperty. To come back with an attitude of compromize is pitifull. The only honest solution is defiance and civil disobedience of copyrights till people start to get it and can no longer afford to keep shoving irrational demands down our throats.

I happen to know that Lessing does not like this approach because he contends that it's extreme and that it won't get sympathy because it's "harmfull" to artists, but no one ever seems to look at the down-side of copyrights or they just assume on faith that it's less than the up-side. Well it's not about sympathy, society will come arround when the media runs out of money. It's about freedom, and how I have a moral right to apply it to my and other's benefit even if a copyright holder does not like that. There is no reason why people shouldn't act this way, and now with the internet they have the power to without having to get token permission or to purchase token licenses.
This is far more respective of creators then the copyright lords have ever been to them or us.

Ain't no tragedy when the supply is limitless...

[maynard]

One of the central points behind Tragedy of the Commons is that given a finite supply of grazing grounds and a competitive environment of farmers grazing on these grounds, an incentive to overgraze is built into the system. Thus the commons for all are destroyed as each farmer maximizes his "share" of the commons to everyone else's detriment. Hardin's essay leaves out the potential for ad-hoc agreement between competing farmers to limit over-use of the commons (without privatization). But most importantly it doesn't even consider the potential for a limitless commons -- that is, one in which the supply in commons is not finite.

This is where Tragedy of the Commons breaks down, Lessig says in The Future of Ideas, his latest work. As Lessig points out, it's a logical fallacy to use Tragedy of the Commons as an analogy to further certain intellectual property rights since there is no limit to the number of times some kinds of IP can be duplicated and distributed. Being a physical object, grass in a commons is in finite supply and subject to the potential for overgrazing. But without artificial barriers (such as copy protection technology) how can one ever over consume to scarcity the supply of digital data such as a software program?

Interesting book.

Cheers,
--Maynard

Re:Real Value vs. Perceived Value

[Bonker]

YOU, the consumer, are not the sole arbiter of what a reasonable sale price is.

Uhm... Yes I am.

Have you ever heard of the laws of supply and demand? If you didn't sleep through highschool economics or miss out seeing the graphics, you know that the higher the (consumer) demand for any given saleable object, the higher the price the originator or merchant can sell it for.

There is zero real demand for Donkey Kong roms at any non-zero price. Therefore, Midway cannot reasonably sell those roms for a profit.

Ergo, the price... legitimate or otherwise... is $0

A lot of black market economies work on this principle. A token amount is paid for a desirable, but basically valueless or disposable item that is for some reason difficult or illegal to obtain.