On 09/03/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/9/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Today's question: what the hell can we do to
come up with something
> big content producers will feel able to release under an actually free
> licence? Something they can feel safe to relax control on? If we can
> get one, we can get more. What can we do to get that first one?
We already have the US Federal government. Given that
no one else has
followed that I'm not sure the position that if we can get one content
producer to do it they will all follow will work too well.
I mean one of the TV production companies.
(In any case, don't you know that US government PD is just an
Americocentric imperialist trick to deny exposure to the European
Sometimes companies will do it as a one off (the new
published a copyleft article a few years back) but given that their
entire profit model is based around controlling content I can't see
that becoming widespread.
No, their entire profit model is based around selling ads.
Really. In commercial television, the ads are the only thing they care
about. The programming really is for filling the gaps. Not owning it
is not a barrier.
That's why the BBC is completely different as an entirely
See, this is why I think it's more about habits of thinking, and why
getting one would help get others.
So in terms of choice of targets public libraries,
museums and the
various national archives might have a slightly higher chance of
I see no reason not to hammer at this one as well.
(Various people are still working on chipping away at the BBC ...)
> (Thanks for not much to Creative Commons for
making some versions of
> CC by-sa 3.0 - not all, just some - not actually free licenses, with
> onerous codification of moral rights that are default anyway in the
> countries affected. Well done. And then you have wikis using licenses
> like by-nc-nd that are nonsensical in a wiki context - thinking a No
> Derivatives license doesn't contradict the whole idea of text anyone
> can edit, because it's Creative Commons. Stallman was right again.)
However given the number of homespun lisences that add
contradictory terms (you may use this under the GPL as long as you ask
permission first) I don't think we can really blame CC for that one.
No, I do think we can. "Free content? Oh, that's that Creative Commons
thing, we're that. Yep." "Um, no, not quite ..."
The practical problem for actual free content is that CC is claiming
to be *the* new model that's an alternative to all rights reserved.