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!"
Too bad it's impossible considering how television is financed and broadcast. It'd be such an irony to see these videos (they're pretty good) broadcast over HDTV, with the no-copy flag on.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
It seems to me that this will only matter when one of two things happens.
1. Heavy promotion of creative commons-licensed material happens somehow.
2. There is a severe crackdown on copyrighted file-sharing to the point that few or none feel comfortable doing it.
I can't see 1 happening ever. 2, on the other hand, may be beginning. Personally, though, I think the better way to address this is just to allow copyrighted file-sharing.
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
And congratulations to slashdot for giving the winners huge, unexpected bills for bandwidth!
A number of the clips use clips from (or at least available in the) Prelinger Archives.
All of these videos require you to attribute their work should you build on it. It would be nice if they would provide credit to their sources as well (although, as public domain, they are not required to).
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
I'm a bit disappointed that two out of the three winners chose the "share-alike" attribute on their Creative Commons license.
One of the strongest selling points the CC system has is that they're not the GPL... they offer variants that don't have the "viral clause" that requires those who use CC pieces to require that the whole work be licensed the same way. Since the strongest selling point of the CC system is that there are really sixteen CC licenses that are formed by mixing and matching four binary attributes. It's possible to insert a CC work into something that's under full copyright, and that's something the GPL just can't do. Flexablity is the whole point of CC.
But maybe they took the flexability too far here. I'm a little surprised the contest organizers left the free selection of CC licenses open to the entrants. I would have suggested that all entries be under a CC license with Attribution and No Derivative Works... therefore allowing anybody who wants to spread the word of Creative Commons to republish the essentially PSA ad works without dictating what the publisher has to do with theirs.
Afterall, the winners got some pretty cool stuff. They've been well paid for their work...
worked for me. Unfortunately the 1st place entry crashed both Mplayer and Totem.
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)
Spend 10 minutes talking to an artist about OSS ideas and you have a OSS supporter. Art wants to be free. Software wants to be free. What a happy combination.
Now, we need to get those converted artists and get them making linux a little easier on the eyes! Although, you'd want to be careful about which artists helped out....
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.
Wow, I hadn't heard of Creative Commons before. What do they get their authority from?
GOD
Yes, the Mov came from moving. But, like talkies, the ie is just a familiar kinda thing. Like, Moving Picture needed to be abbreviated, and "moov" was already taken by move, so someone was like "movie", and everyone was like "dude".
Um yeah...
> 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).
No you dont. First you download QuickTime and make sure you got up to date codecs. Then you go clicking on things. The poster above, on the other hand, had all he needed but didnt know how to turn it on. That does not make your environment in any way superior. Just different.
The mplayer is one of the most sophisticated and powerful media players, capable of playing so many formats on so many devices that it makes Windows based playback tools look silly by comparison. But it does require a bit of know-how.
This one .torrent will download all three videos and a README explaining how to view them.