Dear Liam Wyatt,
Reread my previous emails. I have made it clear that the law that is being discussed and being promoted by the ASCAP is a law that would terminate the internet access of repeat piracy offenders. The only reason why CC et al are involved are through the political advocacy of their creators, most of who were proponents of the P2P piracy and other actions (as you can see from the WSJ article by the CC head).
It has nothing to do with the actual CC licenses as only illegal reuses would be affected.
And "freeculture" is not piracy, just like charity is not theft. Those like myself produce tons of free content that is intended to be free. We have the right not to be associated with law breakers and criminals who steal from those who do not wish their material to be free. Furthermore, since those like myself are academics in nature, we cannot have our material tainted by piracy and the rest, as it would undermine any credibility the material has.
That is why Wikipedia et al takes a hardline stance against copyvios.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Jeffrey, You are aware that Wikimedia projects use creative commons licenses, right? You have noticed that Wikimedia projects delete content on-sight that is a copyright violation? You do know that creative commons is a project to promote the *legal* re-use of copyrighted material?
As the article says:
"While lobby groups EFF and Public Knowledge advocate for liberal copyright laws, Creative Commons actually creates licenses to protect content creators."
Given that the Wikimedia projects are smack-bang in the middle of the free-culture movement, don't you think that you might be barking up the wrong tree to suggest that David G is in any way out of place to be pointing this issue out to us on this list?
On 25 June 2010 23:39, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Dear James,
If that was what Michael was saying, then I apologize for what I said to him. However, I think the problem could be is that some people see only what wired.com says (i.e. targetting Creative Commons, etc) and not the law that was being passed that the backers of those were in opposition to (i.e.
the
anti-piracy law. As I pointed out in the WSJ article, was something Lawrence Lessig would be against as he wanted, if you read the very end, to end
any
enforcement of copyright laws against P2P people, which happens to be blatant piracy).
I am all for my chosing to release my content without any copyright restrictions. I am against forcing everyone to do the same, as there is a lot of content of my own that I do not release freely and I would not
want
to be released freely.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l