I have a hard time believing 5% without names. That represents a huge number, at least 20 million units a year, roughly the worldwide market share of a company like Asus.
(If 5% turns out to be true, that's wonderful! Onward to 50%.:-))
Is what the story title should've been. Confidentiality, not data, is the subject of "safe".
Much like copyright doesn't "protect" creative works, rather it protects revenue streams and feelings of copyright holders and authors.
Another possibility would be dual-licensing with CC-BY-SA and GFDL, but that's probably not worth the extra work unless you've identified materials you want to use that are under GFDL.
If the things they want to use are GFDL-only and the product is an adaptation of those then they don't have the option of dual licensing. You may have meant "you want your work to be incorporated into that are under GFDL."
Only do CC-BY if you simply want to make a gift to the world, and you don't care if your work is repackaged into something non-free by other people.
CC-BY isn't quite a pure gift -- it could be used by a selfish licensor if that person only cares about maximizing the amount of credit they get -- incorporating CC-BY works into non-free works still requires giving credit.
The GFDL and CC-BY are rather different licenses. The first is a copyleft license (requires adaptations to be distributed under the same license), the latter is a permissive license (do anything you want so long as you give credit, roughly).
If you don't want copyleft, CC-BY is your choice.
If you do want copyleft, it would make sense to choose between GFDL and CC-BY-SA, which you can think of as the copyleft version of CC-BY. Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia sites) migrated from the GFDL to CC-BY-SA as their primary content license in June, see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15411
Thanks for not considering a more restrictive license.:)
filesharing has done nothing to break the hold of the major labels on the promotion and marketing of musical acts. As long as they can hold on to those, they will survive, and eventually they will figure out how to take advantage of the internet to make loads of money.
Indeed. Filesharing isn't going to break major label hold on our minds any more than sharing copies of Microsoft software was going to break that company's hold on our computers.
In the end, we'll have advertisements embedded into the hit singles, as part of the music and lyrics.
I don't think the premise is that filesharing should favor less known artists. The premise is that it is ironic that it favors major labels, ie some of the main entities trying to shut down filesharing. That is pretty ironic, no?
TPB is a music (and other media) discovery service to the extent people look at its "top" pages.
Last.fm is of course much more interesting as a music discovery service. For those with concerns like the author of the post, check out http://libre.fm/
But if one starts thinking about it, it has the ironic effect that TPB is a driving force of consolidating the market power of the major labels rather than driving forward any new music. The conclusion has to be that "pirates" are just as little resistant to the major label marketing as any other person. Even though there are thousands and thousands of artists out there that want their music to be shared and listened to, they are widely and effectively ignored by the masses. In fact, one might say that TPB and the likes are countering the development of new markets, simply because the gap between the heavily marketed music and 'the others' is wider than ever, when the bare naked truth about peoples taste in music is put into such a system.
IANAL either. Sorry if that was off-putting. It was intended to be more self-deprecating as I was kind of embarrassed to be posting so many comments on this story when I'm a very occasional commenter on slashdot... haven't earned the right or something.
There's no need to create new licenses to have CC-like easy-to-understand software licenses. CC has experimented with "human readable" deeds for a few software licenses and could work more with groups like FSF and OSI to do more and improve on those.
Noncommercial public licensing failed in software for good reasons, and it would be really dumb to introduce it at this point. Many people complain about NC culture licenses, but for software, they are much worse for a variety of reasons that I'll write about eventually, but see some of the bullets at http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/how-far-behind-free-software-is-free-culture-presentation
There are lots of poor software licenses out there, but the current generation of ones that are widely used and had a ton of attention during drafting are excellent, ie Apache2 and A/L/GPL3. To the extent they are long it is because they need to be (excepting preambles perhaps). CC licenses are also pretty long.
And I didn't mean to imply it is either/or, either.:-)
I suspect that building voluntary commons (in software and culture) is probably the most effective means of advancing long term reform -- they demonstrate that restrictive copyright is not necessary for innovation, creativity, etc.
We in the non-profit licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal in mind.
CC0 is not intended for software. If you want copyleft for non-software, CC BY-SA is probably what you want. If you're against copyright there's something to be said for actually renouncing your own (which CC0 tries to do to the maximum extent possible), but I understand the appeal of using copyright against itself, and copyleft certainly has a big role to play.
No. At least not one used significantly. Around 2000 there were many public content licenses created, including the Design Science License, Ethymonics Free Music Public License, Open Music Green/Yellow/Red/Rainbow Licenses, Open Source Music License, No Type License, Public Library of Science Open Access License, and Electrohippie Collective's Ethical Open Documentation License. Maybe one of those or one even less known happens to be a waive everything only for noncommercial use license. (I didn't mention the ones that were more significant, none of which are what you want.)
Why do you think I make that assertion? I do not. I agree with your assertion. There is always a latent desire to be free of a bad, whether the bad exists or not. I desire to be free of zombie attacks, right now, regardless of the existence of zombie attacks.
Let's go back a bit. I suspect where we might disagree is how one effectively rejects the strict regimen. I say the most effective way to do so is to unambiguously free your creative output, such that even one who does not reject the regimen understands that they are free to to use your creativity. Do you disagree with this? If so, what do you think the most effective way to reject the regimen is?
I have no beef with teachers and learners who do what they have to do.
Anyone who can be meta enough to post on slashdot, I submit, should be thinking further ahead -- ensuring that in a decade there are enough OER that anyone in the world has freedom, regardless of what the copyright regime is (or is not). You and others at WikiEducator and similar sites are doing just that, so many cheers for your activity!
Fighting for fair use and other exceptions is absolutely part of a long term strategy. Critically important to the long term success of free content, analogous to the fight against software patents is critical to the long term success of free software. I can expand that argument if anyone wants to argue.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I have a hard time believing 5% without names. That represents a huge number, at least 20 million units a year, roughly the worldwide market share of a company like Asus. (If 5% turns out to be true, that's wonderful! Onward to 50%. :-))
Is what the story title should've been. Confidentiality, not data, is the subject of "safe". Much like copyright doesn't "protect" creative works, rather it protects revenue streams and feelings of copyright holders and authors.
http://yergler.net/blog/2010/04/22/civicon-plenary-what-are-we-paying-for/
If the things they want to use are GFDL-only and the product is an adaptation of those then they don't have the option of dual licensing. You may have meant "you want your work to be incorporated into that are under GFDL."
CC-BY isn't quite a pure gift -- it could be used by a selfish licensor if that person only cares about maximizing the amount of credit they get -- incorporating CC-BY works into non-free works still requires giving credit.
I find the GPL readable. In any case, this post doesn't ask about the GPL. It asks about the GFDL.
The GFDL and CC-BY are rather different licenses. The first is a copyleft license (requires adaptations to be distributed under the same license), the latter is a permissive license (do anything you want so long as you give credit, roughly).
If you don't want copyleft, CC-BY is your choice.
If you do want copyleft, it would make sense to choose between GFDL and CC-BY-SA, which you can think of as the copyleft version of CC-BY. Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia sites) migrated from the GFDL to CC-BY-SA as their primary content license in June, see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15411
Thanks for not considering a more restrictive license. :)
My business plan is to not think about abicollab again until I hear that the server component is FLOSS. :-)
http://techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml
We can only expect the decline of RIAA member companies will lead to less advertising revenue.
Which is less important anyway since top100 gives RIAA member companies advertising gratis, even as they persecute filesharing. There's the irony.
Captain Obvious should not be oblivious to obvious irony, which is what the post is pointing out.
filesharing has done nothing to break the hold of the major labels on the promotion and marketing of musical acts. As long as they can hold on to those, they will survive, and eventually they will figure out how to take advantage of the internet to make loads of money.
Indeed. Filesharing isn't going to break major label hold on our minds any more than sharing copies of Microsoft software was going to break that company's hold on our computers.
In the end, we'll have advertisements embedded into the hit singles, as part of the music and lyrics.
Yep, and if we're willing to look to other cultures, it's probably already happening, see http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2008/02/23/copypop/
+1 mod parent up
I don't think the premise is that filesharing should favor less known artists. The premise is that it is ironic that it favors major labels, ie some of the main entities trying to shut down filesharing. That is pretty ironic, no?
TPB is a music (and other media) discovery service to the extent people look at its "top" pages.
Last.fm is of course much more interesting as a music discovery service. For those with concerns like the author of the post, check out http://libre.fm/
But if one starts thinking about it, it has the ironic effect that TPB is a driving force of consolidating the market power of the major labels rather than driving forward any new music. The conclusion has to be that "pirates" are just as little resistant to the major label marketing as any other person. Even though there are thousands and thousands of artists out there that want their music to be shared and listened to, they are widely and effectively ignored by the masses. In fact, one might say that TPB and the likes are countering the development of new markets, simply because the gap between the heavily marketed music and 'the others' is wider than ever, when the bare naked truth about peoples taste in music is put into such a system.
Indeed. So obvious, so seldom stated. I made it point 0 of http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/five-myths-about-the-future-of-culture-and-the-commons-presentation
IANAL either. Sorry if that was off-putting. It was intended to be more self-deprecating as I was kind of embarrassed to be posting so many comments on this story when I'm a very occasional commenter on slashdot ... haven't earned the right or something.
There's no need to create new licenses to have CC-like easy-to-understand software licenses. CC has experimented with "human readable" deeds for a few software licenses and could work more with groups like FSF and OSI to do more and improve on those.
Noncommercial public licensing failed in software for good reasons, and it would be really dumb to introduce it at this point. Many people complain about NC culture licenses, but for software, they are much worse for a variety of reasons that I'll write about eventually, but see some of the bullets at http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/how-far-behind-free-software-is-free-culture-presentation
There are lots of poor software licenses out there, but the current generation of ones that are widely used and had a ton of attention during drafting are excellent, ie Apache2 and A/L/GPL3. To the extent they are long it is because they need to be (excepting preambles perhaps). CC licenses are also pretty long.
And I didn't mean to imply it is either/or, either. :-)
I suspect that building voluntary commons (in software and culture) is probably the most effective means of advancing long term reform -- they demonstrate that restrictive copyright is not necessary for innovation, creativity, etc.
Uh, see *if you want a permissive license*.
Brad Kuhn of SFLC (formerly of FSF) put it very well:
Of course CC doesn't do software licenses and some of its licenses are only semi-free by the standards of free as in (software) freedom as applied to culture, but the overall lesson of the responsibility of license stewards applies.
CC0 is not intended for software. If you want copyleft for non-software, CC BY-SA is probably what you want. If you're against copyright there's something to be said for actually renouncing your own (which CC0 tries to do to the maximum extent possible), but I understand the appeal of using copyright against itself, and copyleft certainly has a big role to play.
Yes, it will be translated linguistically (as opposed to "legal porting" done with the main six CC licenses).
No. At least not one used significantly. Around 2000 there were many public content licenses created, including the Design Science License, Ethymonics Free Music Public License, Open Music Green/Yellow/Red/Rainbow Licenses, Open Source Music License, No Type License, Public Library of Science Open Access License, and Electrohippie Collective's Ethical Open Documentation License. Maybe one of those or one even less known happens to be a waive everything only for noncommercial use license. (I didn't mention the ones that were more significant, none of which are what you want.)
Why do you think I make that assertion? I do not. I agree with your assertion. There is always a latent desire to be free of a bad, whether the bad exists or not. I desire to be free of zombie attacks, right now, regardless of the existence of zombie attacks.
Let's go back a bit. I suspect where we might disagree is how one effectively rejects the strict regimen. I say the most effective way to do so is to unambiguously free your creative output, such that even one who does not reject the regimen understands that they are free to to use your creativity. Do you disagree with this? If so, what do you think the most effective way to reject the regimen is?
I have no beef with teachers and learners who do what they have to do.
Anyone who can be meta enough to post on slashdot, I submit, should be thinking further ahead -- ensuring that in a decade there are enough OER that anyone in the world has freedom, regardless of what the copyright regime is (or is not). You and others at WikiEducator and similar sites are doing just that, so many cheers for your activity!
Fighting for fair use and other exceptions is absolutely part of a long term strategy. Critically important to the long term success of free content, analogous to the fight against software patents is critical to the long term success of free software. I can expand that argument if anyone wants to argue. :-)