Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>There is no conspiracy theory needed. You ask "would the foundation do
>this", but we need to first be clear on what 'this' means. If 'this'
>means treating our authors in any way which is unethical today, I
>stand firmly that the answer is clearly no. In the future, I can not
>answer because my crystal ball is not that powerful. If 'this' means
>to work to cause changes to be made to future versions of the licenses
>which temporarily increase the foundations ease at the expense at
>removing the protection of the authors from unethical actions in the
>future, I must answer a resounding yes because it is demonstrably
>true.
>
Absolutely. A solid foundation for protecting individual rights is
preferable to a quick fix for the benefit of the impatent. A big part
of ethics can be the consciousness of the effects and implications of
one's actions. We cannot forsee all the effects of our actions, but we
do have a duty to consider the most likely.
>The Wikimedia foundation has been quietly advocating to the Creative
>Commons and the Free Software foundations alterations to further
>versions of the appropriate licenses which will allow the operators of
>websites such as Wikipedia the authority to permit redistribution of
>content submitted to their website with attribution to the site rather
>than the author of the content. In effect, the *single* remaining
>tangible return an author of freely licensed content receives (their
>authorship credit) will be removed and granted to the priesthood of
>intellectual property barons who have apparently earned the right to
>take credit for the blood and sweat of a world of people because of
>their great feat of operating a website.
>
The phrasing is a little dramatic. ;-) . Nevertheless it does point
to issues around moral rights which, as I see it, go beyond copyrights.
In the strict sense copyright is an economic right, and judicial systems
are often established with economic rights in mind. Attempting to
attach a monetary value to a moral right makes for a difficult transition.
>For the latest in the implementation of this grand vision, take a look
>at the terms of the CC-Wiki license, or the mysteriously vague
>attribution terms so cowardly sneaked into CC-BY-SA v2.0. These
>changes to cc-by-sa could have been implemented as another CC license
>flag 'CA' (community attribution) but instead it was decided to
>include the changes into the root license with no mention in the
>layman version, presumably because such a change would fail to change
>the license of existing works against the consent of the authors and
>would probably too much attention to this difficult issue. Although
>this has not been widely noticed, I certainly am not the only one...
>For example see the interesting distribution terms on enwiki
>User:Jamesday.
>
Having a "layman version" of a law or license only eacerbates the
difficulties of having a law for the rich and a law for the poor. The
layman can go on believing that his simplified version is the law until
someone with greater access can trump him with some obscure clause from
the full version. The only way that a simplified version can work is if
any conflict the detailed cannot override the layman's version, but if
that is the case then what's the point of having a detailed version.
This is roughly akin to those politicians who proclaim that they want a
simplification of tax forms without understanding that what is needed is
a simplification of the underlying tax laws.
>The argument used to advance this change is that, somehow, by being
>submitted to a collaborative authorship site a document no longer has
>authors but is somehow authored by the 'community'. In some cases a
>compelling argument can indeed be made that there was no effective
>single person author of the work, but even in these cases (which I
>contend are rare) it takes a fantastic leap of faith to make the claim
>that some organization (non-profit or otherwise) is the sole official
>legal voice of the above mentioned ephemeral 'community' of authors
>simple because they operate a website which is used by that community.
> But, indeed, that is exactly what is being claimed and what is being
>swallowed because it's a lot easier to pretend that a website operator
>represents the community because the reality of the matter (that the
>community is a shifting cloud of unclear membership and
>representation) is useless for solving the real challenges presented
>by the requirement of preserving something as simple as authorship
>credit in the world of paper.
>
I believe that if that website operator is going to defend the community
then that defence also extends into the courts.to defend the collective
rights of that community. It should be viewed as a duty. But that duty
does not imply that it is the "sole" official voice. The individual
authors should still reserve the right to mount their own defence, and
the community needs to safeguard the evidence that will allow them to
mount that defence.
>Basically we're reaching a point where silly details like the moral
>obligation to credit the authors of a work are hindering the grand
>vision of the knowledge of the world made available to all at the
>lowest cost possible. This is a hard problem, so rather than dealing
>with it head on, the details are being swept under the rug. Licenses
>will and have been retroactively changed to reflect this
>prioritization of the quick solution over ethical obligations.
>
Retroactive changes open up yet another hornets' nest. This section is
interesting:
> Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version
> number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered
> version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you
> have the option of following the terms and conditions either of
> that specified version or of any later version that has been
> published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the
> Document does not specify a version number of this License, you
> may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free
> Software Foundation.
This seems to protect people from being bound by any changes which may
be made to the license subsequent to their edits. Without conscious
compliance to the new version the option to be bound by the old version
would remain.
>Normally I would not worry about this, because such changes which defy
>the character of the licenses agreed to by the creators of content
>would never stand... but the more I consider the issue the more I
>realize how many differing forces will support such changes for both
>laudable (in the case of the foundation) and selfish reasons, and it
>leaves me feeling unsure and angry.
>
Sure! But the arguments that will convince the most people will be
those rooted in convenience.
>I fear that we, the community of authors and spokesmen who support the
>propagation of knowledge freely to the world, have become so impatient
>with the slowness of achieving our goals that we have begun to take
>steps to extinguish the protective flame of decentralization which
>immunizes our work from the privatization, exploitation, and
>commercial imprisonment by greedy self interests, simply because the
>resulting legal obligations of that decentralized existence have
>become a temporary hindrance to our important goals.
>
I'm encouraged by hearing someone else understand that. I have no
problem with undermining the entire copyright system as it is known
because it undermines the greedheads. There are no shortcuts to that
goal; shortcuts could even destroy the mission.
>Such a move to promote the notion that the operator of a
>telecommunication service (isn't that what the foundation claims to be
>when it invokes the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA as a
>reassurance that our negligent handling of copyright matters will go
>unpunished) is granted a special position of unique control over the
>creative works by the users of that service will not only be supported
>by the operators of Wiki's who are currently so inconvenienced, but it
>will also be strongly supported by the newly re-merged
>telecommunications giants so eager to exercise their believed right to
>extract maximum profit from every bit transferred across their glass.
>
In other words we can't have it both ways. But there is more to this
than mere negligence that can be repaired when it is brought to our
attention. This is why I have always maintained that the real problem
will not be with rights that Wikipedia has violated, but with the rights
of Wikipedians that have been violated by others.
>The words "theft" and "steal" constantly create confusion when applied
>to information, it is unfortunate that we use them. You are quite
>correct that no one can take away what we already have, but it is
>quite possible that through changes in license that powerful interests
>will be able to claim special rights over the works of others because
>of their ownership of telecommunications infrastructure at least that
>is the notion embodied by the proposed license changes. So that
>while you will be free to use the content you helped create, another
>group, by virtue of their operation of a telecommunications service,
>will be far more free. You can not claim that you are free so long as
>there is another group which has more freedom with the work you
>created.
>
The introduction of terms like "theft" and "piracy" has diverted
attention away from what IIRC is the Jeffersonian principle in
intellectual property that if you still have the item that is
purportedly stolen it hasn't been stolen.
>Welcome to the new serfdom.
>
>Today we love and trust our telecommunications service providing
>masters, but what changes does the future bring?
>
All surfers are equal, but some are more equal than others. :-)
Ec
PS: I don't know why this thread is on the Wikitech list, so I've
copied this response to the Foundation list, which really seems more
appropriate.
Ec