Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons Moving Images Winners
ArcRiley writes "The winners have been announced for the contest that Creative Commons launched last fall to deliver their ``some rights reserved'' message with a short video. Congratulations to Justin Cone, Sheryl Seibert, and Kuba & Alek Tarkowski for their winning videos!"
Before I download the files (over a 56k dialup), does anyone know if the .mov files are actually playable with a Free Software player?
.mov files is hit and miss for me. sometimes no sound, or the picture appears in the top right corner of the viewer, or... Anyway: can someone confirm/deny that these are viewable? thanks.
I'd expect Lessig to mandate that this commons content be in a non-proprietary format - or at the very least, a proprietary format that has been widely reverse engineered. Playing
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
They work fine for me (Red Hat Fedora kernel with all critical updates installed, ATI video card, Altec-Lansing sound card, etc.).
Too bad you don't have broadband though 'cause they're fairly large.
Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
worked for me. Unfortunately the 1st place entry crashed both Mplayer and Totem.
It looks like all of the clips have the wrong field order in their interlacing leading to jaggies around moving objects.
Anyway, I really liked the third place entry more than the second. It had a lot more information, if a bit fast paced. I found the second place entry confusing with loud lyrics and text on the screen simultaniously.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Authority? Well, I guess you could say they get it from the people, and the copyright system. Similar the the GPL and LGPL, these are just licensed drawn up by people with knowledge of the law and an interest in promoting freedom. If you're interested in distributing a copyrighted creation and allowing other people certain freedoms in using your work, these are well-crafted licenses that aim to meet your intentions, so you don't have to learn the legalese to make your own license.
Here's a (hopefully) fast mirror for your enjoyment:
One
Two
Three
(Should finish uploading in a sec, be patient)
Congratulations, to the winners! Congratulations to Sheryl Seibert for her Mix Tape movie!
You can download the music for her video, for free, from Jim's Big E-Shop.
Wow, I hadn't heard of Creative Commons before. What do they get their authority from?
They're a self-appointed authority. But when you think about it, all of the GPL advocates are too.
They're basically a non-profit that has the main idea that there can be many licenses that exist between full-on copyright protection and public domain, and the GPL is only one of them. Their main licenses are comprised of letting the author make four binary choices and giving them a fully written-out license that matches those decisions, and they have a few offshoot licenses as well such as one called "Founder's Copyright" which is an agreement to release your work under the public domain after 14 or 28 years of full protection instead of the 95 years that the law otherwise grants, and the CC-GPL which is the based on the official GPL with the addition of the metadata and translation features they offer with their other licenses. They also do the same with the LGPL to create the CC-LGPL
They also advocate a metadata standard for license conditions that in the future will hopefully lead to a contrent-creator-aimed search engine that allows people to search for available works that can be dropped into their own works.
It's really a group that understands that the GPL isn't perfect, and allows for anybody who wants to splinter from it from any good reason to create a new license that doesn't have that attribute.
Minor quibble, but it's important enough to be stated. GPL'd works are under full copyright (to use your phrase). There are simply certain additional, relatively major rights that are granted if you accept certain additional, relatively minor responsibilities.
You are still welcome and encouraged to ignore the GPL and use the standard rights that are granted under copyright whenever you receive GPL'd software. You simply will not be able to use the additional rights (such as freer redistribution or modification) that the GPL grants by leveraging its own "full copyright."
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
> if you don't believe in copyrights
People can choose to believe in easter bunnies, santa, and god, but copyrights exist - like it or not.
> you can just put it out there with no license at all
All works of an author give the author exclusive rights - if you recieve something without a license, you have no legal right to make a copy for your friend (etc.)
The CC people *do* believe in copyright - they just believe that it's been stretched out of proporation (either in term/years - or in scope/what you can or cannot do with a work).
This one .torrent will download all three videos and a README explaining how to view them.
In our case (Mix Tape), we selected the Share-Alike license because that was the license selected by Jim's Big Ego for the "Mix Tape" song we used. That made our choice pretty straightforward.