Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
The problem as I see it is that the license does nothing at all.
|
That's simply not true.
Quote:
|
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.
|
No. It's a legally binding license, meaning you're free to do certain things provided you adhere to certain conditions. If you're free to do these things anyway (in a fair use context, say) you don't have to follow it's terms ("polite request", in this case, true enough) but where you don't you're given additional rights that you would otherwise not have.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You might well wish for this to be the case, but copyright law says differently.
Quote:
|
Why exactly wouldn't a creator want her work to be used to create other works?
|
It would obviously depend on the work. I can easily imagine, say, a sculptor creating a piece of work that he wouldn't want to be modified by anybody else.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Even if that's true in your jurisdiction (it's not in mine, rest assured) this is hardly a fault of the license.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, yes. Copyright is a fact of life. It exists of whether you want it to or not, covering your works as well. If you
want people to do be able to do all these things you better tell them clearly and in no uncertain legal terms.