Slashdot Mirror
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."
I've always thought of Creative Commons was a simplified DIY copyright kit. When I create a work (i.e. write in my blog) it automatically is covered by full copyright law. I can't think of a simpler way to make sure I retain the controls I want but still let other people use my work in limited ways without the need to hire a lawyer.
It doesn't complicate Copyright law. It makes it simpler and more accessible.
he's just stiring the pot folks, gotta print something to save his job...
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
It is a Dvorak story. Dvorak himself should have a perminant -10 Troll moderation tattoed to his forehead.
Test your net with Netalyzr
There are legitimate uses for Creative Commons that this humbug is missing. For instance, I've released my first novel Star Dragon online under CC. It's a real, published novel, still available in hardback and paperback, by Tor, a major U.S. publisher of science fiction and fantasy. No one can distribute my book under "fair use" copyright law, because it wouldn't be, and certainly commercial distribution is right out. The publisher has agreed to try it in a promotional effort, the idea being I will make more sales than I lose. Early tech adopters like Cory Doctorow and Charlie Stross have been doing it, too (and while I've gotten great reviews both sell a lot better than me, but are more advanced in their writing careers).
One additional thing. The humbug would claim that in many instances Creative Commons does nothing that isn't already done by existing copyright, except be trendy. Well, don't overlook trendy, I say. Many younger people on the internet these days have a clue what Creative Commons means, and know little to nothing about copyright. They may respect something labelled Creative Commons, and that's worth something. Also, it's nice to see that certain material is expected to be taken, and the author's permission is explicit and clear. It's possible to end up in court with legitimate fair use when the author and the user disagree about what that means.
And finally, even Dvorak is clueless when it comes to copyright. He says you have to add "Copyright 2005" to something to copyright it. You don't. It's automatically covered (you can still do the paperwork and register it, but in principle you don't). So here's a guy writing an article related to copyright who doesn't know the law, criticizing Creative Commons under the assumption everyone already knows the copyright laws.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
As an author, I like the options that Creative Commons offers me. I can share while retaining different kinds of rights.
"Laugh Quietly- tomorrow is your turn to be rong."
Why does slashdot time and time again reward Dvorak's senseless grumblings with links and an enormous readership? Until he has something worthwhile to say, we should stop supporting his constant dissidence. From where I sit, this guy is nothing more than a flamer.
At least, having Creative Commons license included in a growing number of web apps makes it easier to find content with a license suitable to our use.
Hadn't the selection of a license been included in these webapps (flickr, some bloggin software, etc) I really doubt the users would think about these matters, less pick a license for their content.
It has made it simpler for the publisher and the "consumer".
Quite different from what Dvorak says:
"Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders..."
Dvorak is definetly trolling there.
This paid my last vacation, it mi
Too bad he misses the fundamental point that the rush to Creative Commons methodology is in response to the idiotic vaccum with current copyright as it applies to the digital world. He may have some technical and legal points about the context of a voluntary system when contrasted to legal history, but he lacks the vision to understand CC is a plea to the establishment to get off their duff and deal with the 21st century.
Please please please would Slashdot stop giving this idiot so many page impressions. Time after time he writes this shit, all straw-man arguments and half truths, and Slashdot predictably links to it. He hasn't said anything insightful yet or made any useful predictions: why keep posting links to his drivel?
If we ignore him, he will go away. As it is, every time he posts one of these articles his employer gets a nice big boost to their advertising revenue.
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.
Nice to know he seeks independent, unbiased views. Next up, Dvorak interviews Steve Ballmer on the benefits of Linux...
-- Cerebus
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.
Other than that point, though, the article is worthless. The same principle that always must be pointed out with the GPL applies to CC as well: by default, copyright gives you *no* rights to copy except fair use, so any of these licenses can only *add* rights. In the case of the GPL, they add "you can copy this freely as long as you publish the source to any changes you redistribute", etc. The CC licenses work exactly the same way, with a different set of rights given.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Yet every single CC license clearly states "Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above."
Lessig wrote a very interesting book on the subject. An articulate response to that would be great, but Dvorak is just spreading clueless FUD.
to quote from his "column" (used in a very loose sense of the word):
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?
What it's telling you, John, is that you're a dumbfuck who hasn't figured out that the CC license is a MODULAR license.
The basic CC license is, essentially, "public domain" -- there are no restrictions on your reproduction of the material. CC then offers legally defined exceptions. With all of the CC terms in place, you have essentially the full standard U.S. copyright restrictions.
What CC does is it gives you a legally well-formed copyright system that lets you protect your work, yet lets it be redistributed somewhat more freely than typical material, but not-quite public domain free.
it just so happens that one of those optional restrictions is "no commercial distribution". I'd like to point out that this does not in any way trump "fair use", something that Dvorak would know if he had the IQ of a pet rock.
as to why I use CC: I want to allow my works (should I actually get around to putting some content on my website... any day now, folks... ;) to be distributed, and I want to encourage their distribution -- however, I want them to be protected. Namely, I want credit for what I do, and I want more people to release their work freely. So I have a "By, Share Alike" License -- Commercial derivations are perfectly ok.
Can we please not have any more Dvorak on /.? He's just so mind-bogglingly stupid, he makes me feel physically ill. Seriously.
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
The funny thing is that Dvorak actually understands US copyright law. I'd wager 90% of those who have bashed his article haven't even looked at what's on the books.
And wouldn't understand it if they had.
It also makes sense that computer geeks would be in favor of fewer copyrights, but CC is plain old ridiculous.
Your copyright is established the minute you write something unless that right is otherwise waived. Period. This 'Creative Commons' crap is pseudo-intelligent nonsense. Yet the ever-growing online community will likely continue to use it like the sheep they are, and those who simply can't understand a bad idea when they see one will help perpetuate it.
I'll stick to the legal copyright that ensures my work when I create it, thanks. I'd rather not risk losing it.
i have released two works so far - a CD and a DVD - under the Creative Commons license. I have made plenty of money on these, and my sales have been beyond what I thought i was going to make.
,bar, baz... damnit....
gsf.org/copyright
the worst part of this is...i fscking clicked on his link...
crap, frazzel
shit.
aw hell, i guess the damage is done, i might as well read what he has to say.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
As usual, Dvorak misses the point completely.
The whole reason CC exists is because people are getting sued left and right for using someone else's work. He says "Creative Commons tries to insert itself as another layer into a system that already protects content developers like me to an extreme.", but CC is set up the other way. If you write something and want to make sure people understand that they can copy/redistribute/etc *without* worrying about getting sued, then they use CC. If you want to be a dick and restrict the crap you create then you can stick with traditional copyrights.
CC is *not* a way to retain *more* rights, it's a way to clearly share your work with others.
Okay, this guy just doesn't know what he's talking about. He needs to go to a web site and read the definitions of the words he's saying. Quoth TFA:
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."
Of course it does nothing outside of existing copyright law. Creative Commons is a licensing scheme that works within exisiting copyright law.
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?
The answer, of course, is that Creative Commons licenses allow creators to specify which things are allowed. If you want to allow commercial use, allow it. If you don't want to allow commercial use, then don't. It's not that difficult.
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.(emphasis added)
You mean fair use like me quoting segments of your article, John? Anyway, the relevant issue there is that word, "ask". Having to ask permission to do something is certainly no the same as having the right to do something. Creative Commons licenses give end-users rights to do certain things. Yeah, the courts usually allow people to get away with certain kinds of use that violate the letter of copyright law, which fall under the domain of "fair use", but fair use is not really written into most countries' copyright laws. Most publishers, etc. won't allow their content creators to use "fair use" works, as the "fair" part can be challenged in court, which is expensive. The nice thing with Creative Commons licenses is that the rights users have are formulated clearly and it's basically impossible to get very far with suing somebody for use that complies with the license.
I'd keep going, there are more problems with the article, but this post is too long already.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Seriously. I'm not the only one in the thread who points this out. But maybe with enough voices (hah) it will get through the minds of the editors.
/. article. It is uniformly garbage, and has been since about 1991 (he did some adequate writing before that; though nothing spectacular). Don't feed the trolls by giving such tripe frontpage billing! Just don't do it.
NOTHING by Dvorak has any place in a
Buy Text Processing in Python
What a sparkling endorsement of the law -- "Our law is so ridden with bullshit, even intelligent people can't comprehend it!" What's your point again?
Read his bio at http://www.dvorak.org/shortbio.htm Dvorak spews for a living in copyrighted publications. Those are his credentials. End of story. Dvorak's boss likes him because when Dvorak spews he makes that publication's WinTel buying readership feel better about their own bad decisions. Ultimately Dvorak's drivel to an uninformed readership contributes to subscription renewals. That's it. Dvorak's publisher made Dvorak an authority and handed Dvorak his credentials because he sells magazines.
I don't need no estinkin'
Jeepmeister
We all know Dvorak is crazy, if we keep acknowledging his existance he'll never go away.
Is it me, or does every week Dvorak (poorly) write some flamebait-like article? By my count he's been running on fumes for at least 5 years now and can only resort to this type of baiting in order to get someone to want to read his article.
If we ignore him, do you think he will go away?
But then I realized, at some point you need to sit back and remember that people have different motives for doing things. For example, when Dvorak writes a column, his goal is to generate ad revenue for his employer. Factual accuracy and an even-handed approach to the issues don't do much for that goal.
I certainly hope this is not the start of trying to give the open source movement more credit for work it did not do. Creative Commons licenses are not licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative and for good reason. CC licenses are not to be used for computer software. The Creative Commons organization lists the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL as licenses to consider for software. People on /. routinely cite the GPL as an "open source" license despite that:
Digital Citizen
Despite some protests to the contrary, Dvorak used to write some pretty interesting and technical stuff a long time ago. (A long, LONG time ago.) But he and many of his colleagues have simply turned from interesting insightful commentary to writing anything that will get eyeballs.
I used to be very naïve about this. I used to believe that columnists, through their transparant attempts for readership, tried to be fair and honest about what they did. Then I heard an interview with a pretty prominent columnist at an even more prominent newspaper say that she routinely wrote things SHE disagreed with because the point of writing a column is to get people talking.
So, they can and will say anything to get readers. Many of you may think this is a "duh" moment, but it was amazing for me. Dvorak could write an article about how "some people" think that, for instance, Linus is evil and should be dead. (Hey, it's plausible. I'm sure in the entire world there are two people that don't like Linus enough and wish he were dead.) That'll generate a lot of controversy and get more readers. But is it right?! Where's the line?
More and more often, it seems like there isn't any line.
It's clear to me now. Columnists are professional trolls.
(Heh. I guess this means that all those folks that get modded down will wind up working in "journalism" some day. Quite possible. Imagine! A G.N.A.A. feature. Some trolls can dream.)
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
...obviously doesn't understand...
He _does_ understand. He's just trolling for ad hits.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
I'm sure i'm missing some others here....
Well, yes.
4) Change your name to Roland Piquepaille.
What really surprises me here is the response this has received from the Slashdot readership. I've only seen a few people point out the fundamental truth behind Dvorak's flamebait, and I can state it very simply--perhaps simply enough that even Dvorak might understand.
Creative Commons is neither a replacement for nor a substitute of Copyright Law. Creative Commons, like the GPL, is a license that works separately from Copyright. For instance, Microsoft owns the Copyright to the Windows Operating Shi^H^H^HSystem, but end users are allowed to use the OS under the terms and conditions specified by the EULA--a license that limits the user's rights in addition to the limitations of Copyright. All Creative Commons does is provide licenses that afford end users more extensive rights to distribute and/or modify a work under a CC license; the Copyright is still held by the author.
Unlike some posters, I do believe Dvorak is a troll. He is deliberately misrepresenting numerous facts, all of which are easily accessible on the Internet. Then again, I might be mistaken--perhaps he isn't misrepresenting facts and is, instead, just an idiot. He apparently doesn't know the difference between a license and a Copyright. I wish more Slashdot posters would debate on these terms, too, as it proves quite simply Dvorak is a published troll.
(Slightly off-topic: I'm really beginning to wonder if the Anonymous Coward is really just reserved for Dvorak so he can post incognito.)
He who has no