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(a)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