I'm always baffled by how many people who've perhaps thought about cartoons for five minutes or so have immaturely lashed out at an accurate critique they barely understand, just because they want something they agree with, and the maker of the superior cartoons wants them to learn something.
Too many copyright reformers use language like Richard Esguerra's: Ensuring balance in copyright law is not just good copyright policy -- it's necessary to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide.
There is no "balance." "Balance" is one of those awful copyright weasel words like "theft." "Balance" implies that creators and audiences are in opposition with each other, when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no "balancing creators' rights with public freedoms." They are the SAME freedoms. Freedom should outweigh oppression, always; the only way to "balance" them is to rig the scale.
As a film MAKER, I don't want DRM on my film. DRM supposedly exists due to pressure from big studios, but independent films matter too, and I don't endorse DRM on mine.
The commercial would have to be released as Share Alike. Is that going to happen? If it does, it would be a bigger victory than one artist getting a license fee.
Share Alike is like teflon to abusive exploitation. -NC is exactly what abusive exploiters want - a monopoly.
Without some sort of -NC clause, there is absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening.
The -SA clause works even better. And it's Free Software equivalent has a 20-year track record.
Remember, CE is NOT a license, it's a mark. Used with Share Alike (copyleft) it achieves everything proponents of -NC claim they want, without inpinging on anyone's freedom. The -SA license is extremely powerful.
(And not just because my own choice of license is not "libre" enough for a few people, Nina included.)
Strange phrasing - not "libre" enough for me? That reads like you are taking this personally, which is unfortunate. You and I both know you don't need my approval, but we can still discuss ideas.
Every use of the CE Mark needs to be negotiated, just like every use of "rights" does under copyright. It works just like copyright, except without anyone's freedom being restricted.
The CE Mark is NOT a license! It's a mark. Used with a Share-Alike license, it packs a wallop. Used with a more restrictive license, it's mostly cosmetic.
I think any artist that shares their "SRC" will receive a boon in fans and status, but I don't know if regulating that with a license would be of any benefit. There are other incentives for artists to share techniques. Speaking of which, check out this great making-of page from animators Tiny Inventions. They are very smart about sharing!
And the same is true of artists - except for the tenacious belief that they may somehow win the lottery if they lock up their works with restrictive licenses. The economic mechanics are the same, but programmers have embraced them while artists have not (yet). Free Software is 20 years ahead of Free Culture.
Finally, the power of SA means that you will have corporations come to you asking for a license without the SA so that they don't have to open up their work (eg, a movie).
Indeed, this happened with "Sita Sings the Blues." I turned down a very attractive publi$hing offer because I didn't want to undermine the Free Distribution Project. But no one else has to under similar circumstances.
Stallman simply respects software more than the rest of culture. He has various reasons for that. I don't agree with those reasons, nor do I share his preferential respect. But I understand where it comes from, and I respect the hell out of the guy.
First of all, if someone else profits because of my work, I should be compensated, or at least have the choice to be compensated.
Why do you suppose that concept doesn't work for Free Software? Do you think there would be any Free Software if programmers clung to that position? They have at least as much justification for it as you.
On the post: Marketplace's Misleading Report On Fashion Copyright
Re: Re: Coke bottle design
On the post: Man Claims Trademark On 'Goats On A Roof'
Re: Lawyers on a roof
On the post: Freakonomics Does 'Pay What You Want' Screening
Pay before or after?
Better yet, have people pay for admission at some screenings, and pay upon exiting at others. Then compare. Ooh I hope they do that!
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Cartoons
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Cartoons
On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems...
The "balance" delusion
There is no "balance." "Balance" is one of those awful copyright weasel words like "theft." "Balance" implies that creators and audiences are in opposition with each other, when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no "balancing creators' rights with public freedoms." They are the SAME freedoms. Freedom should outweigh oppression, always; the only way to "balance" them is to rig the scale.
On the post: Why Does Everyone Underestimate Netflix?
Re: Re: Sigh
On the post: Why Does Everyone Underestimate Netflix?
Sigh
On the post: Are Non-Commercial Creative Commons Licenses A Bad Idea? Nina Paley & Cory Doctorow Debate...
Re: Re:
Share Alike is like teflon to abusive exploitation. -NC is exactly what abusive exploiters want - a monopoly.
On the post: Are Non-Commercial Creative Commons Licenses A Bad Idea? Nina Paley & Cory Doctorow Debate...
Re: The conundrum
The -SA clause works even better. And it's Free Software equivalent has a 20-year track record.
Remember, CE is NOT a license, it's a mark. Used with Share Alike (copyleft) it achieves everything proponents of -NC claim they want, without inpinging on anyone's freedom. The -SA license is extremely powerful.
(And not just because my own choice of license is not "libre" enough for a few people, Nina included.)
Strange phrasing - not "libre" enough for me? That reads like you are taking this personally, which is unfortunate. You and I both know you don't need my approval, but we can still discuss ideas.
On the post: Are Non-Commercial Creative Commons Licenses A Bad Idea? Nina Paley & Cory Doctorow Debate...
Re: CC-NC is invidious
-NC stands for Not Copyleft.
On the post: TSA Warns Against Evil Photographers Taking Pictures Of Planes
it helps something
Sure it does. It helps the "security" industry.
On the post: Are Non-Commercial Creative Commons Licenses A Bad Idea? Nina Paley & Cory Doctorow Debate...
Re: what other options are there?
The CE Mark is NOT a license! It's a mark. Used with a Share-Alike license, it packs a wallop. Used with a more restrictive license, it's mostly cosmetic.
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: free culture
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: Re: Re: CC
I've written a few articles that address your issues, which are currently in the Techdirt post queue - stay tuned!
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: Re: Re: CC
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: Re: Re:
Finally, the power of SA means that you will have corporations come to you asking for a license without the SA so that they don't have to open up their work (eg, a movie).
Indeed, this happened with "Sita Sings the Blues." I turned down a very attractive publi$hing offer because I didn't want to undermine the Free Distribution Project. But no one else has to under similar circumstances.
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: Re: Re: RMS and copyright restrictions
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: Re: Re: free culture
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: CC
Why do you suppose that concept doesn't work for Free Software? Do you think there would be any Free Software if programmers clung to that position? They have at least as much justification for it as you.
Next >>