[Upd-discuss] Re: Creative Work Law for the EU. We have the right to share!

[Andrius Kulikauskas]

Ralf,

Thank you for explaining! I share your letter with the COMMUNIA and UPD 
lists, too.

I like to distinguish between code and content.  Code likes to clump, 
but content likes to crumble.   So  copyleft licenses are working quite 
well for code, but they aren't feasible, I think, for content generated 
through social venues.

Content likes to crumble - this also means that, in general, it's not 
that hard to remove and rework an offending piece of content.  If you 
change your mind - or make your mind clear - then you couldn't sue for 
damages, but you could inform the user and say - stop distributing this 
further (certain archival exceptions would be allowed and there would be 
a window for compliance) and negotiate with me for future use.  The 
current compensation rules are very mean and arbitrary and I don't think 
this would make things worse.  Instead, it would encourage producers of 
large commercial capital projects (like films) to share their income 
with more people.

Regarding God, nature, genius etc. I would like to see that society 
allow each user to decide by their own individual conscience if 
something is absolutely creative (by God, genius or whatever) and 
thereby allowance would be made for that individual to share that work.  
(Note that currently, modern translations of the Bible are copyrighted.  
Is that what God, the author, wants?)  This would be similar to how 
"consciencious objectors" are allowed to avoid military draft.  Or how a 
church demonstrates that it's not just a tax dodge.  They have to be 
able to demonstrate the reality and sincerity of their belief.  Also, it 
would elevate the situation where a person really likes something (their 
favorite song) and believes it has some kind of deep merit. It's 
fundamentally important for society that they get to enjoy that work.  
That's more important than commercial compensation can ever be.

Andrius

Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt


Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:28:00PM +0300, Andrius Kulikauskas wrote:
>
>   
>> Your use of copyright highlights its absurdity.  
>> I start with that, then 
>> write about the culture I seek, 
>> and finally, address your points.
>>     
>
> Thanks Andrius, for taking the time to discuss the points about
> copyright and public domain. I hereby place this message -- and the
> earlier message you were replying to (which I had placed under a cc no
> derivative works license) -- in the public domain. Making it a different license was meant to provoque a litte -- not to anger you. 
>
> If I did, please accept my apology.
>
> It seems that I interpreted the following part of your original message:
>
>   
>>  >> ------------------------------------------------
>>  >> Public Domain has Priority over Copyright
>>  >> ------------------------------------------------
>>  >>
>>  >> The European Union prepares and issues a directive that all member
>>  >> countries pass laws and amend constitutions, as needed, so that for
>>  >> creative works, the Public Domain has priority over Copyright.
>>     
>
>
> to mean that once some work has entered the public domain, all *derived* work should be public domain, too (priority over copyright). 
>
> After
> reading your answer and re-reading the original text (several times in
> fact) I think that I might have misinterpreted this. That's why I
> originally came to the conclusion that this would constitute a
> share-alike license for all public domain work and on reading that
> again, I think I was wrong.
>
> I support your goal of making public domain the default -- in the sense
> that new work or work derived from public domain works will be public
> domain *unless the author asserts otherwise*.
>
> I also fully agree that the current state of orphaned works effectively
> prevents use of these works and needs a correction.
>
> Also your point, that copyright is something artificial and hard to
> understand is right -- but I think we have to cope with it for some
> time to come.
>
> I like your statement about Mickey Mouse:
>
>   
>> It's noteworthy that so much of the "copyleft" movement focused on the 
>> fact that "Mickey Mouse" may never enter the Public Domain.  From my 
>> point of view, given that the Walt Disney company has invested so much 
>> in Mickey Mouse, why shouldn't they maintain Copyright indefinitely?  
>> It's their mouse!  Why would we want to "own" that culture?
>>     
>
> Yes let them keep it. But the desire to keep it made them lobby for
> changes in copyright law that we see to today as "collateral damage" --
> the current state of affairs, that copyright extends 70 years after the
> death of an author, is the result of this "lex Disney". That's why the
> "copyleft movement" focuses on this case, not because we want Mickey
> Mouse :-)
>
> Still I think that we need licenses like the GPL and the CC share alike
> license to protect our freedom. It does make sense (to me) to ask people
> who use some innovation to contribute their extensions to this
> innovation back to the community. I'm mainly concerned with technical
> innovations here, other current applications of copyright law (like the
> arts) may need different thoughts.
>
> Concerning your original message under "The Right to Changes One's Mind"
>
> I think that this is quite problematic -- for authors who build their
> own works upon a public domain work that it can effectively be revoked.
>
> The GPL and CC share-alike licenses explicitly grant a non-revokable
> license to use the work as intended, you can't change your mind and
> revoke these right. 
>
> I think this is necessary for free software and
> hardware. You can still change your mind and make the license more free
> (like I did with my "non-derivatives licensed" message). This can become
> problematic if you're not the only copyright holder (because there are
> contributions from others).
>
> Otherwise consider this scenario: Under the new public domain laws you
> propose, I'm making something public domain by not attaching a copyright
> to it (new default case). You build upon that work, either also in the
> public domain or with some software under GPL. Then I decide to change
> my mind and make the work copyrighted and sue you for license violation.
>
> Wouldn't this be possible?
>
> Another point I don't quite understand is the following:
>
>   
>> Works are creative in that they transcend the will of the author. Works
>> may be partly creative, not entirely transcendent. Authors may restrict
>> the use of their work by Copyright only to the extent that their work is
>> NOT creative. The lack of creativity is given by the author's style as
>> evident in the form of the created work.
>>     
>
>   
>> Works of God, nature and genius are absolutely creative. They transcend
>> style. Anyone may use such works in the Public Domain if they explicitly
>> regard them accordingly, free of style.
>>     
>
> Does this mean that creative work may not be copyrighted? How do I
> recognize creativity? Who judges? Why would we want this?
>
> In the following I'll take up some of the statements of your last
> letter. Let me re-explain what I meant with that "license":
>
>   
>> Then you copyrighted the 
>> combined work under a license that explicitly (!) prevents derivatives.  
>> And that means that I myself "may not alter, transform, or build upon 
>> this work." ... I  suppose that my reply here is building on your work and 
>> even reformatting it with ">" signs.  You allow me to "cite portions" 
>> under "fair use".  But didn't I have that right without your license?  
>>     
>
> I wanted to show that even under that license, taking up my work and
> criticizing it, and citing from it (effectively building on it) could
> not be excluded by the license. My explanation of fair use wasn't meant
> as an exception to the license, just an explanation of the rights you
> have anyway. The goal was to show that even under such a restrictive
> license (I've never used a non-derivatives license before and have
> corrected this now, see above) you don't lose many rights.
>
>   
>> Shouldn't I cite the whole thing?  Haven't you, pragmatically, made me 
>> think twice about your wishes?   How have you allowed for more than 
>> regular copyright?
>>     
>
> The license also grants you the right to quote the whole thing.
>
>   
>> I take the liberty to ignore your ugly, petty license.  I don't agree to 
>> think of you as such a blind and petty person.  What are you going to do 
>> about that?
>>     
>
> You're welcome :-) But I don't think you violated the license. But I'm
> not a lawyer...
>
> Ralf
>