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