I just KNEW I liked John Dvorak . . .
While Dvorak wants shorter copyright terms and perhaps a larger public domain, he says things I've been saying in this column, "Creative Commons Humbug."
Some juicy quotes:
And my favorite?
Actually, John, there IS another answer. They've invented Creative Commons as cover. They need to be able to say "we believe in intellectual property" so they don't come across as the naive anti-IP radicals that they are. So they've invented this form of IP that isn't really IP, so that they can claim to believe in intellectual property--but just a very specific, nonfunctioning form of IP that they've invented, that precludes people from really owning, controlling, or profiting from their creations.
Watch Larry Lessig. He's constantly saying that he believes in intellectual property, yet he opposes every specific application of IP--except for Creative Commons.
John Dvorak, you made my day.
While Dvorak wants shorter copyright terms and perhaps a larger public domain, he says things I've been saying in this column, "Creative Commons Humbug."
Some juicy quotes:
This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.
This is nonsense. Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something. And that has not changed. And I could always use excerpts for commercial or noncommercial purposes. It's called fair use.
Public domain is public domain. It's not something granted by Creative Commons. Yet you see this over and over as if it were!
And my favorite?
. . . why are bloggers and do-gooders and various supporters making a point of tagging their material as being covered by Creative Commons? Is it just because it's cool and trendy—a code for being hip amongst a certain elite? There is no other answer.
Actually, John, there IS another answer. They've invented Creative Commons as cover. They need to be able to say "we believe in intellectual property" so they don't come across as the naive anti-IP radicals that they are. So they've invented this form of IP that isn't really IP, so that they can claim to believe in intellectual property--but just a very specific, nonfunctioning form of IP that they've invented, that precludes people from really owning, controlling, or profiting from their creations.
Watch Larry Lessig. He's constantly saying that he believes in intellectual property, yet he opposes every specific application of IP--except for Creative Commons.
John Dvorak, you made my day.