June 18th, 2009
|03:15 pm - CTP work and an ambush by the Creative Commons license|
Not long ago (in fact, about two weeks ago), I got re-involved with my IP/CTP work. Something's been tripping me up, though, and I realized that it's a combination of two things:
- Time to look up sources when I'm at home, and
- Some weird notion that I've done all the "easy" stuff.
Really, there's nothing in the CTP that's easy, and nothing in the CTP that's hard. It just all is. I just need to take the time to do it, and soon. Clock's a-tickin'.
I also discovered (and was somewhat appalled to discover this) that some of my work has been released under the Creative Commons license. While I'm about as kopyleft as you can get with my work, I am rather opposed to it having anything to do with Creative Commons, particularly without my permission. The restrictions on the CC licenses bug the crap out of me, honestly (of course, with my pleasure at working in a kopyleft framework, I should point out that it only bugs me because the Attribution tag means that people have to say they got it from me, while the ShareAlike tag means that derivative works must also be under the CC license, both of which I feel are unfair restrictions).
Amusingly, all work is automatically copyrighted, so one must go through and de-copyright it to make it kopyleft. I rarely get around to that. I do occasionally use the "©" symbol, more because there is no reversed symbol available in regular HTML, and it really is just simpler to type "all work © MJD" than saying "all work copyleft by MJD". The © you see on my site is left over from before I knew about kopyleft, actually: I just haven't changed it (mostly because I'd have to do it by hand on every page. . . poor planning).
Still, the CC license annoys me because it insinuates things about my work that aren't true. At least with copyright, people will ask if they can use it or ignore the copyright altogether (both of which are cool by me). With CC, they think they're free to use it but have to use it in specific ways, which is not cool by me.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: annoyed
Current Music: "Desperation Samba (Halloween in Tijuana)", -JB
|Date:||June 18th, 2009 07:42 pm (UTC)|| |
It's important to be clear that there's not one Creative Commons license, but lots of them, with widely varying options. I think that Attribution is common to all of them (as well as to almost all "Free" licences I've seen. ShareAlike is pretty much what I understand copyleft to be (and if not, you should keep in mind that many many people share my view). Any CC license gives the recipient more than they'd get by default. Of course, the fact that your stuff is being relicensed without your consent is a huge problem, and probably invalid or a copyright violation itself.
|Date:||June 18th, 2009 07:49 pm (UTC)|| |
Creative Commons licenses actually have legal weight, while (according to that Wikipedia article) the Discordian idea of copyleft does not. Therefore, saying your work is copyleft is no better for the recipient than "All rights reserved."
Well, what fun would it be if it had legal weight? I rather prefer it not having any.
Then again, I suppose I could sue someone over using it, but that would require me to actively care that they used it for their own ends. . . which I doubt would happen.
|Date:||June 18th, 2009 08:09 pm (UTC)|| |
The thing about legal weight is that without it then you're back to the default "nobody can do anything", which means that people and organizations who take seriously the possibility of getting sued can't do anything with it. They have no leg to stand on if you do sue, so they can't risk it. There are valid licenses out there that do what you want anyway.
This is the main reason I've given ADF
rights to all my work in writing already. ;)
Interesting. I hadn't heard of kopyleft before. I kind of like the concept.
Last summer, when my band released our album, we put it under copyright with the caveat that if you bought it or we gave it to you personally, you were allowed to make and distribute 3 copies to individuals or entities in whatever format they wanted.
I don't know that anyone's taken us up on that, just yet, but I'll be happy if and when they do.
Oh, and good luck with your CTP!
The best way to get noticed is probably to do two things: 1) get local airplay and 2) leak your tracks to a couple of file-sharing sites.
I know that I've been turned onto many local bands through a combination of CD101 and piracy. I pay for it shortly thereafter, if I like the rest of what I hear.
To which the record companies would say, "See, you're stealing!" To which I reply, "See, make good music people will buy even if they already have it!"
Yeah I operate under a similar paradigm. The only bands whose works I buy outright without a digital test drive are those that have proven over and over again that they don't make crappy music *coughcoughTOOLcoughOPETH**
Ahem, excuse me.
But yeah, we do need to finally get that stuff sent out to CD101. Torrents would be a good idea, too. Excellent thinking!
I think that my position on good music can be best defended by the total number of legal copies of "Margaritaville" I own. I should count them or something.
Okay, I own at least 9 copies of "Margaritaville." And six of "Son of a Son of a Sailor." I'll stop counting now: it'll just get worse.
|Date:||June 18th, 2009 08:51 pm (UTC)|| |
Yeah, unfortunately (k) has no value beyond pleasing She What Done It All. Since it isn't an actual legal license, all of your (k) work is really (c). Which technically means you could sue whoever took your (c) work and CC'd it :-0
Of course, any Discordian that goes to court over (k) will be excommunicated... at least for an hour or so ;-)
Indeed: I'd never risk excommunication. Well, there was that time in Reno. . .
|Date:||June 19th, 2009 01:00 am (UTC)|| |
Wait so... how did your work get moved to a Creative Commons license without your permission, and how did you find out? :/
It was published (among other things) in a document that was published under the CC license. In general, I'd prefer not to go too deeply into it right now (mostly because I'm not going to do anything about it, appalled as I am), but it is annoying.
I was asked to review the document and found my name on the cover as a "contributor." Pure coincidence, as I probably never would have read this particular document, even though I've had access to it for a long time, nor was I ever asked to work on it or if my work could be included.
Edited at 2009-06-19 03:58 pm (UTC)