Yes you are missing something. A law-abiding citizen in a truly free country should not have to have second thoughts about putting a book on a public wish list. The worst you should expect is to be spammed by the publisher, and _not_ that you'll end up on the no-fly list or worse.
This is for all the folks who typically respond with "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". Well, my reading habits were nothing to hide five years ago. Today, I'm not so sure. How about yours?
The moment you think "I'd better not put this title on my public wishlist because if I do, there's a non-zero chance I'll end up on the no-fly list", you're not a free citizen in your country. It's that simple.
Okay, so we've had the predictable reponses about how building software is different from building bridges, and then others point to the respective difference in cost. All true. But if bridges and buildings are so much more reliable than software, it's not only because they cost more. It's also because when they are designed and built, all procedures must conform to known standards (and not a few regulations). The specs are open and auditable, and architects actually have their work inspected all the way.
Should every word processor be built in this way, with open specifications, norms and audits? I don't know. Now how about vote-tallying software?
I downloaded and tested each version of opera until 4.0. I gave up when they reached 4 and still supported only Western European code page, iso-9959-1. IE and Netscape (back then) had no problems with code pages by version 3 of each, if nog earlier.
Initially opera was small and fast and nimble, and I loved it, but couldn't use it because of the above. Then they started adding crud like the email and newsreaders, Java, horrible (horrible!) new toolbars... while Opera still couldn't display properly htmlized East European languages. Then they added banners, and this was it for me.
I had great hopes for Opera, so I'm the more bitter about how they, IMO, misprioritized development. In comparison, the FireFox team did everything right. It took a few years waiting for Mozilla to come around, but now it's here and it's solid, while Opera isn't even small or fast any longer. Too bad.
"As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, a few of us inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation. We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the commander's assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses waiting. The commander had lied to us to get us to move.(...)"
" Unfortunately, our sinking feeling (along with the sinking City) was correct. Just as dusk set in, a Gretna Sheriff showed up, jumped out of his patrol vehicle, aimed his gun at our faces, screaming, "Get off the fucking freeway". A helicopter arrived and used the wind from its blades to blow away our flimsy structures. As we retreated, the sheriff loaded up his truck with our food and water.(...)"
Version 2.0 and you still can't specify drives and folders to include in the index. Why does Google tink I keep all my stuff under "My Documents"? GDS is as pretty as anything from Google, but it's useless. Try Copernic (free), try Yahoo desktop search (likewise), try many others.
There is no such thing as consent, unless you would also throw away all the cases of sexual assault in the workplace, since those too may have been "consensual". If you must choose between agreeing to the genetic test or being out of work, consent comes nowhere near it.
If you really believe that a terrorist would go claim deposit on the rented truck after a successful bombing run... I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.
I can understand that. But if I'm going to publish something under CC, I probably wasn't about to hire a lawyer anyway -- unless significant revenue were at stake, but I don't suppose most content creators using CC expect significant revenue.
Creative Commons lets the creator give more rights to users than users normally have under standard copyright. And by using the boilerplate, designed by lawyers who really know copyright law, the creator saves cash and trouble.
Well, you might want to focus harder. The purpose of CC is not to provide a stricter copyright control than you have by default, with or without the (c) clause. The purpose of CC is to RELAX the restrictions, without losing all the rights, which is what happens when you assign a work to public domain. As someone else says above, CC lets you give up some rights, selectively, and you decide which rights you want to give up.
Thanks to CC I can do that without having to hire a lawyer (who may not have focused hard enough on copyright law in the first place).
Don't want to turn this into a flame, but I've scanned through the threads in this article and I can't figure out why it is that so many lawyer types can't grok the idea of individuals wanting to GIVE UP some rights. They all assume CC must be meant to enhance copyright protection, and they see no point, since the protection is already there. It's really telling, isn't it?
That's a boon because, first, seeing that permission right there might put it into another person's mind to build on your work, and second, creative people who might just forget about building on your work because they can't be bothered to ask you will be able to go ahead and use it.
And the creator doesn't have to bother replying to permission requests.
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.
A popular Polish word translates to English "foamer", for foaming at the mouth. MIght be a worthy addition to the English lexicon for people like these.
Performance is one thing, but I would expect the driver of a minivan to be much more concerned with safety and less with burning rubber than the driver of a sports car. Consequently, it might be reasonable to *lower* the speed limit for sports cars.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes you are missing something. A law-abiding citizen in a truly free country should not have to have second thoughts about putting a book on a public wish list. The worst you should expect is to be spammed by the publisher, and _not_ that you'll end up on the no-fly list or worse.
This is for all the folks who typically respond with "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". Well, my reading habits were nothing to hide five years ago. Today, I'm not so sure. How about yours?
The moment you think "I'd better not put this title on my public wishlist because if I do, there's a non-zero chance I'll end up on the no-fly list", you're not a free citizen in your country. It's that simple.
Do you have a source for that last fact you mention, in bold? I've read much, but of _this_ I haven't heard before.
Where did you see that? Last time I checked (not longer than a month ago), a 1 GB thumb drive sold for $99 at Fry's.
Here's one:
w orld_stories.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/121505_
Okay, so we've had the predictable reponses about how building software is different from building bridges, and then others point to the respective difference in cost. All true. But if bridges and buildings are so much more reliable than software, it's not only because they cost more. It's also because when they are designed and built, all procedures must conform to known standards (and not a few regulations). The specs are open and auditable, and architects actually have their work inspected all the way.
Should every word processor be built in this way, with open specifications, norms and audits? I don't know. Now how about vote-tallying software?
8859, not 99, of course.
I downloaded and tested each version of opera until 4.0. I gave up when they reached 4 and still supported only Western European code page, iso-9959-1. IE and Netscape (back then) had no problems with code pages by version 3 of each, if nog earlier.
Initially opera was small and fast and nimble, and I loved it, but couldn't use it because of the above. Then they started adding crud like the email and newsreaders, Java, horrible (horrible!) new toolbars... while Opera still couldn't display properly htmlized East European languages. Then they added banners, and this was it for me.
I had great hopes for Opera, so I'm the more bitter about how they, IMO, misprioritized development. In comparison, the FireFox team did everything right. It took a few years waiting for Mozilla to come around, but now it's here and it's solid, while Opera isn't even small or fast any longer. Too bad.
"As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, a few of us inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation. We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the commander's assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses waiting. The commander had lied to us to get us to move.(...)"
1 8337.shtml
" Unfortunately, our sinking feeling (along with the sinking City) was correct. Just as dusk set in, a Gretna Sheriff showed up, jumped out of his patrol vehicle, aimed his gun at our faces, screaming, "Get off the fucking freeway". A helicopter arrived and used the wind from its blades to blow away our flimsy structures. As we retreated, the sheriff loaded up his truck with our food and water.(...)"
http://www.emsnetwork.org/artman/publish/article_
Version 2.0 and you still can't specify drives and folders to include in the index. Why does Google tink I keep all my stuff under "My Documents"? GDS is as pretty as anything from Google, but it's useless. Try Copernic (free), try Yahoo desktop search (likewise), try many others.
There is no such thing as consent, unless you would also throw away all the cases of sexual assault in the workplace, since those too may have been "consensual". If you must choose between agreeing to the genetic test or being out of work, consent comes nowhere near it.
If you really believe that a terrorist would go claim deposit on the rented truck after a successful bombing run... I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.
I can understand that. But if I'm going to publish something under CC, I probably wasn't about to hire a lawyer anyway -- unless significant revenue were at stake, but I don't suppose most content creators using CC expect significant revenue.
Creative Commons lets the creator give more rights to users than users normally have under standard copyright. And by using the boilerplate, designed by lawyers who really know copyright law, the creator saves cash and trouble.
Well, you might want to focus harder. The purpose of CC is not to provide a stricter copyright control than you have by default, with or without the (c) clause. The purpose of CC is to RELAX the restrictions, without losing all the rights, which is what happens when you assign a work to public domain. As someone else says above, CC lets you give up some rights, selectively, and you decide which rights you want to give up.
Thanks to CC I can do that without having to hire a lawyer (who may not have focused hard enough on copyright law in the first place).
Don't want to turn this into a flame, but I've scanned through the threads in this article and I can't figure out why it is that so many lawyer types can't grok the idea of individuals wanting to GIVE UP some rights. They all assume CC must be meant to enhance copyright protection, and they see no point, since the protection is already there. It's really telling, isn't it?
That's a boon because, first, seeing that permission right there might put it into another person's mind to build on your work, and second, creative people who might just forget about building on your work because they can't be bothered to ask you will be able to go ahead and use it.
And the creator doesn't have to bother replying to permission requests.
Free and reliable legal assistance, that's what.
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.
Where are my mod points when I need them. Well said, Sir.
Fantastic article! A great way to speak about IP. Thank you.
"To drill down" is a well-established idiom. What's the problem?
Every drilled up? Or sideways?
Properly put, this is "small-timeframe momentum alteration". Or so.
The word is "pieniacz" - derogatory for a litigious person.
A popular Polish word translates to English "foamer", for foaming at the mouth. MIght be a worthy addition to the English lexicon for people like these.
Performance is one thing, but I would expect the driver of a minivan to be much more concerned with safety and less with burning rubber than the driver of a sports car. Consequently, it might be reasonable to *lower* the speed limit for sports cars.
Damn right about night-time speed limits, though.