I'm linking to Joe Wikert for the second time in a week, because he makes a great point I've attempted to make, but he makes it more succintly and clearly:

According to this cnet article, Lessig was hyping the Creative Commons license (CCL) during a talk at LinuxWorld this week. Based on the article, I’m assuming he’s recommending that existing copyright law be abandoned and everything should shift to the Creative Commons model. Why?

Anyone who wants to is free to use the CCL for their content. Those who prefer a CCL alternative, and choose to hang onto all their rights, are able to go the traditional copyright route. Won’t the marketplace ultimately determine which of these models works best? If there are loads of CCL resources available for free, for example, why pay for something else, regardless of what license it happens to use? I realize this debate isn’t about free vs. paid content, but this example helps illustrate my point.

I tend to think both models can and will continue to coexist quite nicely.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 12:28 PM | Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)