Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellby
|
The problem as I see it is that the license does nothing at all. It's a polite plea with the user of the material not to do things that it should, and is their right to do with cultural objects. It says you are free to share, which is a redundant statement. Of course you are free to share, that's how the web works, it doesn't work if you don't share, and the material isn't read if it's not shared. This is permission given to something so obvious it shouldn't even need to be written down. If you don't want to share you work and have others share it, don't put it out as a digital file, because it's going to get shared whether you like it or not. Then we follow with you may or may not remix this work, which again is a redundant statement. Why exactly wouldn't a creator want her work to be used to create other works? The very foundation of culture is based upon a bedrock of modification and usage of earlier works (whether directly used or as inspiration). If you say don't remix, aren't you just another roadblock to culture like the publishing companies? I don't know if I could live with that idea.
Now, let's come to the most controversial part of any CC license; the non-commercial or allowing of commercial aspect. While in theory this is the strongest part of the license (nobody wants to see Michael Bay ruin what they have created and make money from it) the defense of this aspect of the license is near to impossible. As a writer without wads of cash in the bank I couldn't defend this in court, and would probably end up spending more money than I would ever recieve in compensation. Also my thoughts have been turning toward the 'what-if' someone made money on what I'd written? What if they made it better or worse? Do I really lose anything if someone takes what I've written and uses it to make money? Or might I gain exposure or bad exposure?
I see now that the GPL and derivatives are probably the wrong choice for articles of culture. They work in software because it is of a different nature. But the same copyright that underpins and is ruining our creative culture on all sides, seems to underpin (and is not changed by) the CC license. Again, I'm not a lawyer and I started this thread because I had questions that I can't believe more writers aren't asking about their culture and the place they have within that culture.
As to where I stand, well, I can't possibly stand on the side of copyright. It's an unenforceable, frankly detestable way of treating others and of seeing your own work and place in the wider culture.
Public Domain looks like the best option at this moment in time, both for me and for the greater culture. Besides all that, it doesn't stop me from making money off my own work if I choose.
Thanks for the input everyone.
