Dvorak on Creative Commons

pHatidic writes "In a recent article, John Dvorak trashes creative commons as being, 'one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.' His main arguments are that CC unnecessarily complicates copyright law, and that the name sounds dumb."

Comments

Really now..

[sH4RD]

Who really cares what Dvorak thinks? Yeah yeah, "Score: -1, Redundant", but I'm making quite a different point here. Most people so far are pointing out that Slashdot sure links there a lot, and boy is Dvorak negative, but really now, what has Dvorak done in the past that lead us to at least listen to his b*tching? I'm actually kinda seriously asking that question, as opposed to just rhetorically, because I really want to know what he did that somehow made some people respect his judgement as a pundit. I seem him everwhere it seems, but he never seems to make any sound statements, so what was the sound statement that gained people's trust? Or is his just another media-hyped, uptight, over critical whiner?

Don't Go to His Site!!!

[charlie763]

This guy is an asshole. Going to his site will just make him look as if he has a good readership to his bosses. Read the article text below:

Creative Commons Humbug
07.18.05
Dvorak
Total posts: 36


By John C. Dvorak

Will someone explain to me the benefits of a trendy system developed by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford? Dubbed Creative Commons, this system is some sort of secondary copyright license that, as far as I can tell, does absolutely nothing but threaten the already tenuous "fair use" provisos of existing copyright law. This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.

If you are unfamiliar with this thing, be sure to go to the Web site and see if you can figure it out. Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law.

I have sent notes to this operation and never received a reply, in case you're wondering. Meanwhile, according to its Web site, the Creative Commons organization has money from the Hewlett Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation. For what?

I have begged critics of the system, such as The Register's Andrew Orlowski, to explain to me how Creative Commons works or what it's supposed to do that current copyright law doesn't do. He says, "It does nothing." Okay, then why are bloggers and do-gooders and various supporters making a point of tagging their material as being covered by Creative Commons? Is it just because it's cool and trendy--a code for being hip amongst a certain elite? There is no other answer.

There are several things that bother me about this initiative. First, Creative Commons is similar to a license. You sign up with the group and post a message saying that your material is protected or covered by Creative Commons. This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes. Why not commercial purposes? What difference does it make, if everyone is free and easy about this? In other words, a noncommercial site could distribute a million copies of something and that's okay, but a small commercial site cannot deliver two copies if it's for commercial purposes. What is this telling me?

This is nonsense. Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something. And that has not changed. And I could always use excerpts for commercial or noncommercial purposes. It's called fair use. I can still do that, but Creative Commons seems to hint that with its license means that I cannot. At least not if I'm a commercial site and the noncommercial proviso is in effect. This is a bogus suggestion, because Creative Commons does not supersede the copyright laws. In fact, the suggestion is dangerous, because if someone were sued by the Creative Commons folks over normal fair use and Creative Commons won the suit, then we'd all pay the price, as fair use would be eroded further.

There's another thing that bugs me about Creative Commons. When you see its licenses the wording will say something like "Creative Commons License: Public domain." This means that the item is not covered by copyright but is in the public domain. So what's Creative Commons got to do with it? Public domain is public domain. It's not something granted by Creative Commons. Yet you see this over and over as if it were!

A good example is found on this page of the Prelinger Archives--a site that has a slew of old training films and miscellaneous campy productions. An information box at the start of a film review includes the notation: "Creative Commons license: Public Domain." Either this is incredibly pretentious or people do not know what public domain means. If I write something on my blog, for example, and decide not to cover it with th

Re:Creative Commons

[Anonymous Coward]

You dont need to add a "(c) 2005 Me" thats implied on all you write. CC gives a way to easily give away some rights to others while keeping most.

At least he's being honest

[Mrs. Grundy]

He says he doesn't get it--and he's right he doesn't. From TFA:

In other words, a noncommercial site could distribute a million copies of something and that's okay, but a small commercial site cannot deliver two copies if it's for commercial purposes. What is this telling me?

This is telling you that if you want to make money by selling my creative work, then I need a peice of that pie as the creaotr. I don't understand what is so difficult abou this concept

This is nonsense. Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something.

If my policy is that anyone can reuse, alter and build upon my work for non-commercial purposes isn't easier just so say so--to encourage people--rather than replying to emails? I say everyone here on slashdot should send Dvorak an email asking if they can resuse his work and see how long it takes for him to see the point.

"Creative Commons License: Public domain." This means that the item is not covered by copyright but is in the public domain. So what's Creative Commons got to do with it? Public domain is public domain. It's not something granted by Creative Commons. Yet you see this over and over as if it were!

It is not something granted by creative commons, but it can be something granted by the holder of the copyright and an easy way to communicate this is via public domain statement--kind of like--you guessed is--the one creative commons standardizes.

Re:At least he's being honest

[An Onerous Coward]

Wonderful idea. His email seems to be john@dvorak.org. I'm sending him the following:

Mr. Dvorak,

I just read your article, "Creative Commons Humbug", and would like to reprint it on my blog as a tutorial on how to wax indignant about a subject without performing even the most basic research about it beforehand.

May I?

Re:Creative Commons

[Miros]

To be less obscure, copyrights are automatic and instant whenever you author anything original.

Dvorak can't comprehend being less restrictive

[MythoBeast]

The Creative Commons isn't about binding your property rights closer to you, it's about specifically allowing people to use your work for certain purposes. He's somehow thinking that it's supposed to add restrictions to use, but it is actually all about decreasing restrictions.

Certainly the principles of fair use allow you to use excerpts from people's work for media purposes, but it doesn't allow you to recombine pieces into clips, it doesn't allow you to use it as background music for an informational broadcast, it doesn't allow people to re-mix your work in with others to create something new. Creative Commons DOES allow these things.

It also has a very effective proviso that allows you to specify that others can't use your work to make money off of it through this license. If they want that, they have to make special arrangements with you. This fits many people's philosophies much better than current copyright laws do. "Give my stuff as much airplay as you like, but if you earn money off of it, I want my cut".

Re:Some uses for novelists, some criticisms

[sharkb8]

It's a good thing you're a professor of astronomy, and not copyright law.

No one can distribute my book under "fair use" copyright law, because it wouldn't be, and certainly commercial distribution is right out.

Just because you're book's still in print doesn't mean that there is no fair use of your book. In fact, the fair use doctrine is what allows people co minimally infringe on your copyright, while the work is still relevant. I can quote parts of your book, even if it is still in print, especially if the parts are relatively short, and I am doing it for teaching, critical or satire purposes.

But you are only partly correct when you state that no one can distribute your book under fair use. If you sell your book to me, and I in turn sell it to a recycled book store, that's legal (First sale doctrine and all, you already got your bucks). The recycled bookstore can resell it, and at a profit also. Can I publish and sell your entire book myself? No. You need to be paid.

And creative commons doesn't change anything about copyright. It's a license, just like the GPL. you still own the copyright to your work, there are just conditions on people using it.

I will agree with your statement about attaching the Copyright notice. I think Dvorak probably heard something about taht in the 1970's. One way to get around copyright for certain works published before 1976 (IIRC) is to find a version published pre'76 without the copyright symbol. Doing so meant it was dedicated to the public. THe Berne convention forced the U.S. to move away from the annoying formalities.

But I agree with you that Dvorka has his head up his arse, He's a frequent understudy in the Billy Goats Gruff.

Re:Creative Commons

[Anonymous Coward]

Every work ever created is covered by copyright law, whether registered or not.

You don't have to put a fancy label on it for it to be copyrighted; common law provides the protection. US Copyright law adds a few penalties and rights, but the rights exist without it.

Re:Get over yourself, John.

[SatanicPuppy]

It can be renewed for another 35 years. I don't know where the extra 5 comes from.

--SP

Re:Creative Commons

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from his snark, Dvorak's argument seems to be "what's the big deal, anything I write is already protected and my grandchildren will own it?" He doesn't understand that Creative Commons is a way of *giving up* some rights. But without giving up *all* rights.

With Creative Commons, a content creator can specify clearly that they wish their work to be shared collaboratively, which is the real point of "non-commercial". It's not about peace love and sprouts, it's about getting information quickly into the hands of peers. This intermediate status is an emergent necessity, previously unknown to law.

Re:Creative Commons... not too bad

[Elektroschock]

As I wrote in my prior post, it has educative purpose:

* it raises awareness of your rights as an author

* it helps you to understand that copyright is no one system but a tool which you as the author can use, it also allows you to dedicate it to the public domain etc.

A copyright system as opposed to a droit d'auteur system puts focus on the person who uses the work in order to make money out of it.

A CC license is like a human rights declaration or the US constitution with its "pursuit of happiness". You can say, well, are you not going to be happy when it is not in your constitution as in most parts of the world.

Re:Some uses for novelists, some criticisms

[Ulven]

He isn't trying to limit the rights you have, but extend them.

The book is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License.

Without the licence I couldn't give my friends copies of the book. With this licence I can, as long as I don't get paid for it, don't change it, and attribute the author.

Summed Up

[paul.dunne]

"John C. Dvorak's modus operandi is to instigate. He is a button-pusher, seldom if ever trying to inform, preferring instead to inflame. And he's pretty good at that. A decade ago, he was the back-page columnist for the now-defunct MacUser magazine; almost every month, the MacUser letters-to-the-editor page contained at least one angry message asking "Why do you publish this guy's column?" The answer, of course, was because it was the sort of column that inspired people to write letters-to-the-editor.

"Dvorak is a pundit, not a reporter. When he makes a prediction, it is usually based on nothing more than his own conjecture, not actual sources. And looking at his track record, his conjecture usually has more to do with what he thinks will be controversial, rather than what might actually happen. (E.g. he's often predicted that Apple was about to go out of business, a prediction which never ceases to get a rise out of the easily incensed.) There's nothing wrong or dishonest about that, but it's something you need to keep in mind with everything he writes. To the best of my knowledge, he's never had a serious scoop regarding Apple -- a significant prediction that turned out to be right -- and he's been on the job for at least two decades."

-- John Gruber

Next!

Re:Creative Commons

[russ_allegro]

You don't need to stick a copyright notice on it, it is optional. More info

Re:Dvorak: -10 Troll

[coolGuyZak]

There are two different Dvoraks.

Re:Creative Commons

[Eric Giguere]

No, it's not a simplified DIY copyright kit. Creative Commons is about simplified licensing of copyrighted works. One of the hardest things about getting permission to use someone else's copyrighted work (and Dvorak's arguments about fair use should be read in light of Ivan Hoffman's fair use article and the realization that "fair use" varies greatly from legal jurisdiction to legal jurisdiction) is actually tracking down the owner of the approriate rights in order to ask them for permission.

Don't believe me? Check out the copyright clearance section of Project Gutenberg. Who has control over which rights is not always clear, nor is it clear how to contact them. A Creative Commons or similar license removes the need (under appropriate conditions) for explicitly obtaining permission from the rights holder.

Now, it's true that the early CC site wasn't very clear as to the purpose and use of the CC licenses. But not anymore.

Eric
Another random blog to look at

Re:Tiny good point among the chaff

[JohnA]

They already include such verbage as seen here.

Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.

Re:Get over yourself, John.

[Scooby Snacks]

Try Title 17, Chapter 3, 302 instead. Chapter 2, 203 deals with duration of licenses, not copyrights.

This clause primarily affects the music industry. The artists get their music "back" from the labels after 35 years. As a side note, remember the story a while back about the Congressional secretary slipping in a provision defining music as being works-for-hire? He claimed that it was simply an editorial change that clarified existing practice when in fact it drastically altered the way things currently work. He was later offered a lucrative job by one of the labels or the RIAA.

In any case, Mr. Dvorak was wrong. (What else is new?) It's life plus 70, not life plus 75.

Re:Some uses for novelists, some criticisms

[EggyToast]

He means actual distribution. Fair use covers education, criticism, and parody. It doesn't cover "copying the book to people for promotional purposes, hacking excerpts to show the insides, or creating copies to publish."

What Dvorak misses, and I think what you're also confused by, is that CC does nothing to complicate copyright law. In fact, what CC does is ease the restrictions on copyright.

Under normal copyright law, for someone to take a piece of your work and do something with it, even if it's post it in their blog, is an infringement of copyright. If I were to quote your text on Slashdot here and put it somewhere else, say, in an email to a friend, that's copyright infringement.

Now, most people don't care about it. They don't want their work limited, and they don't want their audience afraid of using their work. However, they also don't want to say "Feel free to copy my stuff!" because what if someone compiles stuff they wrote or created into a book and published it for money? How do they make a distinction that they are waiving copyright for people who just want to copy it and disperse the information for free, vs. those who want to turn a buck?

That's one of the biggest reasons for the CC license. Technically, it expands fair use. It says "Yes, I still have copyright on my work. However, these are the things you can do with it that you wouldn't be able to under an 'All Rights Reserved' copyright statement."

CC is powerful because it informs the audience what they can do with the works they're looking at. In some cases it's text. In others it's pictures, or schematics, recipes, music, whatever. With a music comparison, regular copyright would restrict people from putting it on a P2P network, correct? Under CC, the original author explicitly can state that it's OK to put it on a P2P network, or make copies for friends, or broadcast the work. But that it's not OK to press CDs and sell them to people, or put them on a compilation and sell that, or include it with a radio show that is pay-only.

Looking at that, it's obvious how it does the OPPOSITE of adding complexity to copyright law -- it loosens the copyright of the author in a specific and easy-to-understand way. It points out the copyright of the original author, yet explains what the audience is free to do without repercussions. In this day and age of RIAA lawsuits and C&D letters, I find it exceedingly important to have easy-to-understand-and-use licenses like Creative Commons.

Re:Tiny good point among the chaff

[A.S.]

quoth the OP:

the CC licenses should have a (purely informational) clause noting that "none of these limitations should be construed as eliminating any Fair Use rights granted by U.S. copyright law."

They do. Look it up before you make incorrect assumptions.

saith e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5:

Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.

Re:Creative Commons... not too bad

[ComputerSlicer23]

Creative Commons doesn't give you any bonus rights that copyright doesn't.

Who is "you" in that sentence? "A content producer", yes, that is true. The reason you choose to use a CC license, is precisely because you want to give up rights to the consumers so they can use your works in specific ways with explicit permission. They don't have to ask you personally, they have a very good idea of exactly what is allowed because of the CC license without having to contact you. A lot of the goal of the CC licenses are because who a copyright holder is legally, and what they will allow can be lost to the sands of time. 30 years from now, it'll be really hard to find me or the inheritors of my copyrights. So if you find something clever I create today, you'll have to wait until 75 years after I die to publish it. First you'll have to find me, then prove I died. Then prove when I wrote something. Then you'll have to wait a really long time. If I have no problem with non-commerical use of it during my lifetime a CC license makes a lot of sense.

If "You" is the content consumer, you now have lots of rights you didn't have if they put them under "All Rights Reserved". There you would have only fair use. You still have that under a CC license. Fair use, is when copyright rules essentially can be ignored, you can do things that copyright specifically prohibits if you fall under fair use provisions.

The "Creative Commons Licenses", are nothing more then pre-canned license that accomplish common desires of content creators.

Just like the GPL doesn't accomplish anything that copyright doesn't. Both the GPL and the Creative Commons Licenses are there to allow a content creator to give rights to the "consumers" of their works, that marking something "(C) 2005 All rights Reserved" would disallow them from doing.

They also do this using a common license. There is power in using common licenses. First it helps to establish legal precendence that on exactly the same licensing terms. So legally, I don't have to be an expert, if I forget to cross a 'T', or dot my 'i', I'm screwed. I'd much rather use one that has been reviewed by lots of legal experts, and used by lots of other people. Those people are likely to come to my aid, if my case ever would set bad legal precedent for protections they want.

I can put anything I want under a CC license, and everyone still has all of the same fair use rights as if I used "All Rights Reserved" as my copyright license.

The only thing Dvorak said that made any sense at all, is that "CC: Public Domain" is silly. However, it's consistant, so I why they list it as one of their licenses. Even if it is silly, there's still no harm in it legally that I'm aware of.

Kirby

Nope, he doesn't get it...

[rmdir -r *]

From TFA:

There are several things that bother me about this initiative. First, Creative Commons is similar to a license. You sign up with the group and post a message saying that your material is protected or covered by Creative Commons. This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes.

The emphasis was mine. Now, check this out from the Creative Commons web site:

Offering your work under a Creative Commons license does not mean giving up your copyright. It means offering some of your rights to any taker, and only on certain conditions.

What conditions? Our site will let you mix and match such conditions from the list of options below. There are a total of eleven Creative Commons licenses to choose from.

Ahem. First: IT IS A LICENSE. Just like the GPL, the MPL, the BSD license and ten thousand others. It.Is.A.License. Which means that I can release my work, explicitly tell people what they can do with it, and under what terms. The CC guys are releasing pre-written licenses that cover common situations, which is a Good Thing(tm) because every dweeb who writes some crappy web novel isn't forced to write his own license, and because it promotes explicit licensing of individual's work before it becomes an issue- like when some other dweeb steals it and puts their name on it.

There, see Dvorak? That wasn't so hard. It has a purpose. To promote explicit licensing (a prophylactic, to be sure) and to promote sane licensing so content can be re-used.

Re:Creative Commons

[BiggyP]

Creative commons allows you to stipulate how you wish your licensed works to be used, if you want to let people know that they're allowed to use all your stuff for non-commercial purposes, for free, you can do that quickly and easily by attaching a CC license. The automatic protection under copyright law doesn't give you any such benefit.

Re:Tiny good point among the chaff

[AnObfuscator]

The one tiny good point Dvorak makes here is that the CC licenses should have a (purely informational) clause noting that "none of these limitations should be construed as eliminating any Fair Use rights granted by U.S. copyright law." That's a clarification to the license that is at least worth discussing.

It's already in there: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/fullrigh ts. So he's wrong about that, too.

I think it's fair to say that he's just a moron who doesn't take the time to perform even the most basic research.

Re:Creative Commons

[jhoger]

Well I won't give Dvorak a page hit; I don't think he's really a drooling idiot, so it must be a troll.

But I'll counter his argument with one example where CC worked beautifully:

I asked Leo Brodie author of Thinking Forth to allow republication of his book under a Creative Commons license. We discussed different options... he chose a "non-commercial" clause, but allowed derivative works and share-alike.

So what we have is a LaTeX repub and PDF downloadable from SourceForge by anyone. And he is selling hardcopies of the book through a print-on-demand publisher.

A project is in the works to update all the classic Forth examples to modern Forth usage. Also a translation to Spanish of the LaTeX repub is underway.

How could Dvorak be so obtuse? Of course Brodie could negotiate a separate license with each person who wanted to make some use of Thinking Forth, or just sell copies. But without granting additional rights, he wouldn't have gotten the free labor and TF would have stayed out of print and an orphaned works for 70 PLUS YEARS.

The Creative Commons licenses are just a legal tool, that's all. It's like going to the bookstore and buying a bunch of standard contracts. It reduces the time, if any, you have to spend with a real lawyer in order to grant rights to use your work beyond what copyright allows, safely, to a wide audience without negotating with each user individually, one-on-one.

Simple, understandable. Dvorak, you're just a troll.

-- John.

Re:Creative Commons

[alfedenzo]

The actual legalease of the Attribution CC license actually specifies the mimimum requirements for attribution.
To summarize, you have to name the author and title (if any), and if applicable, the URI and the license. If it's a derivative work, reference what it's a derivative of. Attribution should be with any other credits, and should be as prominant. The attribution should also be represented in a manner appropriate to the medium. In other words, the HTML source would not be a reasonable place to stick the attribution for an image. It would, however, probably be appropriate for some CC javascript code.

The legalease for Attribution-No Commercial-Share Alike can be found at here, with the attribution clause being 4.d. I would assume that the other Attribution licenses would be similar. I am not, of course, a lawyer.

Re:Creative Commons

[Firles]

Hi all, I am a copyright focussed law student, and want to make a quick comment. The CC obviously has nothing to do with copyright. You already have a copyright in everything you write automatically. Mr. Dvorak is incorrect on that point though, there is no longer a requirement that you include a copyright notice! It is that easy! ~Firles

Consent and Fair Use

[natrius]

Dvorak harps on about how Creative Commons licensed works hurt his ability to ask someone for permission to copy their work. It does nothing of the sort. If you want to use a Creative Commons licensed work in a way not approved by the license, you ask the creator just like you would otherwise. The reasoning behind the noncommercial license he derides is that the author wants commercial uses to be paid for. That's no different from works under full copyright.

You can still quote Creative Commons licensed writings all you want. The license doesn't affect fair use at all. The only time you need to worry about getting a license to copy a work is when it exceeds fair use.

If you're going to denounce somethign with such vitriol, you should probably at least understand it first.

Re:So wait, what's the difference....

[be-fan]

That's basically what CC is! Is it only shorter to write "All rights reserved except reproduction for non-commerial use" than "licensed under Creative Commons"? It's simply a way of standardizing the legalease, so people can immediately know what rights they have to a particular work.

Re:Creative Commons

[tdonahue]

John Dvorak not understand?!?!?!? Oh my , what is this world coming to? Dvorak always gets everything he blabers about

Come on, this is John Dvorak that you are talking about, from everything I have EVER read by him, I would have to say he is the second-most incompetant technical columnist that has ever graced this world.

Re:Creative Commons

[cicho]

Yes, and by default it's copyrighted in such a way that all use of the work is prohibited (unless it's "fair use"). That is emphatically not the point of CC. You use CC when you want to relax, not restrict, the rights granted by copyright by default. So you don't have to write your own legalese, which any non-laywer is likely o screw up.

Some have said above "hire your own lawyer". Only a lawyer will say this. How much am I willing to pay a copyright lawyer to draft me a license for something I want to give away for free? Lessig has done a great, great favor to people who themselves do favors to millions of strangers.

Re:Creative Commons

[PierceLabs]

Do you know what rights you have as someone who might want to distribute those works if all you run across is a copyright? None. Do you know what rights you have if you run across a creative commons notice? Click on the notice and it will tell you.

The creative commons effort GIVES you some limited rights where you would have absolutely none otherwise. CreativeCommons isn't about saying "hey don't take my stuff" (if all you want is 'no use' then sure, just put a copyright notice on it). CreativeCommons is about saying "hey you can use what you see here - but here are the restrictions".

In one case you have no rights for redistribution and a legal minefield if you think you might have some 'fair use' rights that the author hasn't given you. (What are you going to do, spend thousands of dollars in court to defend yourself?) In the CC case, you have pretty clearly defined rights for limited use. The copyright owner is granting you something that you didn't have before!

How can Dvorak be so clueless yet profess to even speak intelligently about the space?

"open source" is just a description.

[Some Random Username]

The GPL IS an open source license, despite RMS's ludicrous blathering to the contrary. The source code is open, so it is open source. Its simply a descriptive term, it does not imply or require any sort of membership in any kind of club. The OSI guys do not own the words "open source", nor can they redefine the meaning of these words.

Saying open source is not the same as saying OSI, so you and RMS can both quit getting your panties in a bunch over nothing and trying to redefine the english language to suit your agendas.

Re:Creative Commons

[mollymoo]

The CC obviously has nothing to do with copyright.

The CC is a selection of licenses you can apply to work for which you hold the copyright. Without copyright there would be nothing to license. Literally, CC licenses tell you what rights you have to copy the work. CC has everything to do with copyright.