The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
The world has gone mad.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #1
Lives for gear
The world has gone mad.

So this is kind of related to piracy, but more or less a compounded issue.

First we have exhibit A.

Anonymous & Lulz Security Statement - Pastebin.com

Next you have exhibit B.

Swartz supporter dumps 18,592 JSTOR docs on the Pirate Bay

The more that I sit and think about it, the more that I realize: They actually have motives. Sure they're stealing plain and simple.

However, I think the majority of this has to do with politics. Media just got stuck in the cross hairs because that's mostly what is being computed. In reality, they're using it as a scape goat to get funding to start real information warfare. It could've been anything else.

At the same time, they get public support and recruits. Most of them kids. They're selling a political idea, raking in funds, etc and as the years go by they gain more power because they have an unlimited bank account and an army of hundreds to thousands.

I don't think Creative Commons has anything to do with copyright at all. It's political marketing.

Above all else, it's subversion.

Linux has completely destroyed the server software and smart phone software market, leaving the paid software creators ousted in many cases. It's not all bad because you still have the device makers and software supporters/in house coders that win. What gets these guys up in the morning isn't piracy but the fact that the whole philosophy of Linux and GNU is political and they want to take part in it.

So they do their best work, and convert. Selling CC/Linux/Gnu stickers, t-shirts, etc and creating a social atmosphere. All of it's political with ONE goal:

Devaluation. Which causes the men in suits to start rambling threats, which they can use against them with subversive tactics and the circle continues. It's black flag hacker jihad. No matter what it is, or how you look at it, even if it seems innocent on the outside. You only need to read zdnet for a few days with Linux/Microsoft (in their words, M$) flame wars. The reason why they push Linux? They want to push Microsoft and the people who make commercial software out of business.

It's worked. Microsoft is a hurting software company. Sure they have enough cash to stay afloat for a long time but they of all people have even been pushed into writing code for Linux to try to have SOME market in the server industry.

Then you have Google, etc who like the idea but only so that they can buy it when it fails. Even the open source guys and Google are not on good terms at the moment.

It seems some things that I've thought may happen long in the future in the past is already happening now.

Piracy is stealing, but the movement is socio-political. It's much much more than taking art. It's the Bolshevik-ism of the internet. When I first read the Sprawl trilogy in HS, I thought we may have that type of world in 2050.

But it seems that we're going to be living in that world soon, minus "jacking in". It may be in the cards in the future though.

Overall, I think that once these laws go into effect, it won't be piracy we have to worry about. It will be the pirate recruits. Some of them who've been made millionaires from developing code. When hacking died down in the last part of the 90s, most of it was due to the open source movement, spending their time on something interesting. The mantra then was also security, or the lack thereof.

Who's to say these same people who've been employed and bought into by government and the corporations because of the lack of understanding then won't flip over at the drop of a hat, and live out the movie "Hackers"?

I really wonder what's going to happen. I know I've said, thought, and commented on this issue before but I seriously believe something is brewing that transcends sharing a few songs over p2p. The message is clear. The world has gone mad.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #2
Gear Addict
 

I don't necessarily want to address the rest of your post, but I really have to question your view of Creative Commons licenses as a tool of "political marketing."

I release a number of my works under various Creative Commons (and similar) licenses and I don't consider it a subversion of anything. There's a wide variety of ready-made terms which I personally primarily use to facilitate the open sharing of my work without allowing others to exploit it.

I'd like you to expand your thoughts on this subject, because I'm not seeing how CC licenses fit into the greater worldview you present here.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #3
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I don't necessarily want to address the rest of your post, but I really have to question your view of Creative Commons licenses as a tool of "political marketing."

I release a number of my works under various Creative Commons (and similar) licenses and I don't consider it a subversion of anything. There's a wide variety of ready-made terms which I personally primarily use to facilitate the open sharing of my work without allowing others to exploit it.

I'd like you to expand your thoughts on this subject, because I'm not seeing how CC licenses fit into the greater worldview you present here.
CC does not allow for anything that can't be done under traditional copyright law, except that CC is a political agenda, but this isn't a political forum so I'll leave it at that. And for the record, The Pirate Bay is also a political organization.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #4
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
CC does not allow for anything that can't be done under traditional copyright law, except that CC is a political agenda, but this isn't a political forum so I'll leave it at that.
Sorry, rack, but I don't understand what you mean by "traditional" copyright law. CC licenses have legal weight only because of copyright law. If there was no copyright, there could be no CC license; it is precisely copyright law that empowers licensing terms like those of Creative Commons.

I see the CC license suite simply as an easy-to-understand set of pre-written licenses that lay out terms generally conducive to redistribution and derivation. Copyright law is the fundamental basis for these terms, just as it is for the more restrictive and exclusive terms that commercial works are licensed under.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Sorry, rack, but I don't understand what you mean by "traditional" copyright law. CC licenses have legal weight only because of copyright law. If there was no copyright, there could be no CC license; it is precisely copyright law that empowers licensing terms like those of Creative Commons.

I see the CC license suite simply as an easy-to-understand set of pre-written licenses that lay out terms generally conducive to redistribution and derivation. Copyright law is the fundamental basis for these terms, just as it is for the more restrictive and exclusive terms that commercial works are licensed under.
right, so you don't need CC - ANY easy to understand pre-written license can be applied to your work, and ultimately you have the right to do with your work as you choose, so again, no need for CC other than it's political agenda.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #6
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
right, so you don't need CC - ANY easy to understand pre-written license can be applied to your work, and ultimately you have the right to do with your work as you choose, so again, no need for CC other than it's political agenda.
In my brief investigation I could not discern any particular political agenda serviced by the Creative Commons organization. They support the rights of creators granted under copyright law, but I would not consider that a political position. If there's a smoking gun that I'm missing, please inform me of it.

Any potential political agendas aside, a major practical reason that I use CC licenses is that they're in moderately widespread use and are very easy to understand. CC licenses focus on conditionally granting rights to interested parties, and the CC terms are very clear about what rights are granted and under what conditions they apply. It's honestly exactly what I want from a license for works that I'm trying to share more freely.

Are there other ready-made and understandable licenses available to creators in this vein? I'm certainly willing to consider any options if there are advantages to them.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #7
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
CC does not allow for anything that can't be done under traditional copyright law
We've had this discussion before. It's extremely simple to designate various specific options using CC, and it's very easy for people who might want to create derivative works to understand the wishes of the content owner.

Now, I'm unaware of a similar designation using "traditional" copyright. Are there simple icons and simple verbiage designated by international copyright?

As for CC being a a political organization, I guess.. because you say so. They are clearly in favor of a more nuanced view of copyright.. seems like that's the entire reason it came about. Maybe that is political?
Old 22nd July 2011
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
In my brief investigation I could not discern any particular political agenda serviced by the Creative Commons organization. They support the rights of creators granted under copyright law, but I would not consider that a political position. If there's a smoking gun that I'm missing, please inform me of it.
I suppose your "investigation" failed to turn up any mention of Lawrence Lessig and his anti-copyright crusade? Which is a tool of the campaign of the tech companies to destroy copyright, enabling them to use content as a loss leader for their sales of services and hardware?
Old 22nd July 2011
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I suppose your "investigation" failed to turn up any mention of Lawrence Lessig and his anti-copyright crusade? Which is a tool of the campaign of the tech companies to destroy copyright, enabling them to use content as a loss leader for their sales of services and hardware?
Bingo
Old 22nd July 2011
  #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
We've had this discussion before. It's extremely simple to designate various specific options using CC, and it's very easy for people who might want to create derivative works to understand the wishes of the content owner.

Now, I'm unaware of a similar designation using "traditional" copyright. Are there simple icons and simple verbiage designated by international copyright?

As for CC being a a political organization, I guess.. because you say so. They are clearly in favor of a more nuanced view of copyright.. seems like that's the entire reason it came about. Maybe that is political?
A) Anyone can create and freely distribute whatever rules they want regarding their own work - that's the point of copyright.

B) yes, CC is political.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
From dictionary:

subversion (səbˈvɜːʃən)

— n
1. the act or an instance of subverting or overthrowing a legally constituted government, institution, etc
2. the state of being subverted; destruction or ruin
3. something that brings about an overthrow

From wiki:

Subversion — "A destructive, aggressive activity aimed to destroy the country, nation, or geographical area of your enemy... [by demoralizing the cultural values and changing the population's perception of reality].

Of course this is completely true with lulzsec. However, as far as copyright law is concerned, much of the same methods are being used. As rack pointed out, there is nothing under normal copyright law that you can't do.

Quite a bit of the beginning of the creation of CC was due to groups like The Evolution Control Comittee, which is a mash-up group deliberately taking artist works and mashing them with other artists works in direct protest of copyright, Negativland, etc.

"®™ark" are another collective associated with that scene. They were a part of the etoy hacktivism act, which ended up being the foundation for the ethics of Anonymous and Lulzsec. They are also related with The Yes Men. The culture jammers tend to be associated with blac bloc anarchists as well.

They're using the arm of Lawrence Lessig to write lawful documents and play with government at it's core.

CC's logos are a method of subvertising, which is related to the movements I described before and which all of these people are heavy supporters of CC.

Quote:
Subvertising is a portmanteau of subvert and advertising. It refers to the practice of making spoofs or parodies of corporate and political advertisements.[1] Subvertisements may take the form of a new image or an alteration to an existing image or icon, often in a satirical manner. A subvertisement can also be referred to as a meme hack and can be a part of social hacking or culture jamming.[2] According to AdBusters, a Canadian magazine and a proponent of counter-culture and subvertising, "A well produced 'subvert' mimics the look and feel of the targeted ad, promoting the classic 'double-take' as viewers suddenly realize they have been duped. Subverts create cognitive dissonance. It cuts through the hype and glitz of our mediated reality and, momentarily, reveals a deeper truth within."
Such as true with the copyleft movement, etc.

Now, personally, I can't say whether I'm for one or the other except for the fact that the effects to the IP industry is huge. In other words, it's not meant to be political or start political conversation in other areas. (though there isn't much politics involved anyway, except in regards to copyright law)

The truth is, CC, and these people are anything but innocent and they are all a member of a larger organization and group. A good deal of them happen to be non authority leaning hackers who also just happened to develop half of the used technology in the internet, etc.

What if a bunch of them decided that it was a good idea to hide a bug in the code that allowed them to gain access at whim in an organized manner? Say in something like the Linux kernel? What would happen then? Since they all talk, and are all affiliated with one or more of these groups (face it), can they be trusted?

The things that are going on now have me suspicious of who and what is really controlling what and for what purpose. Microsoft may be Microsoft but they have protection by the internal ethics of a corporate enterprise. Open source has none. Their internal ethics are made by the group, whatever the group wants the group decides. They could all agree to stick a bug in the code in a major release, that one user or a group of users, perhaps lulzsec or anon uses to hack the whole entire world running open source software the very next day and bring the whole economy crashing to a screeching halt.

And they would have NO liability. "it was a bug." is all they would have to say. Since the GPL has a very boldly stated as-is clause, none of the programmers, or people involved would be able to be held accountable.

If you don't believe me, you only have to look at the sub article in the second article I posted: Former Reddit co-owner arrested for excessive JSTOR downloads which is the reason why I make this last point. Of course he's on bail now, because he's a millionaire.

He also coded the syndication that news organizations, etc use. It's my suspicion that this is NOT a "one time fluke" and it's actually a real serious issue that needs to be addressed. Not only as far as piracy is concerned, but privacy, and a whole mess of other things. There's some people who take lulzsec with some lulz but I take them very seriously. There may be one member as head of bank security. There may be a member as head of security of a number of other places that need to be secure. I believe they know this, and their letter is no laughing matter.

It's an official declaration of war. Something we don't want happen, because imagine what happens when your name, funds, etc get involved in the cross hairs.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #12
Gear Addict
 

I was unaware of Lawrence Lessig's role as a board member of Creative Commons, but I am aware of his political stances and disagree with the characterization presented here of them. I don't think Lessig's presence as a founder means that Creative Commons itself is a political organization. I will continue to consider it a valuable resource for creators.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I was unaware of Lawrence Lessig's role as a board member of Creative Commons, but I am aware of his political stances and disagree with the characterization presented here of them. I don't think Lessig's presence as a founder means that Creative Commons itself is a political organization. I will continue to consider it a valuable resource for creators.
doesn't change the facts.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #14
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
A) Anyone can create and freely distribute whatever rules they want regarding their own work - that's the point of copyright.
You missed the "simple" part...
Old 22nd July 2011
  #15
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Bingo
Ad hominem. Separate the person from the issue. The question isn't about someone who is on their board, the question is whether they are a political organization, it's about their actions.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #16
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
Ad hominem. Separate the person from the issue. The question isn't about someone who is on their board, the question is whether they are a political organization, it's about their actions.
Lawrence Lessig WROTE the freaking CC.

He's just not on the board, he is the action.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #17
Gear Head
 

public, private transparency

"Microsoft may be Microsoft but they have protection by the internal ethics of a corporate enterprise. Open source has none. Their internal ethics are made by the group, whatever the group wants the group decides."

Ha? Hahahaha? I find it Orwelian to claim that only a private corporation is capable of ethics, whereas an open group of volunteers in a transparent organization, unaided by the corporate profit motive and implicit correlate desire for steeper social hierarchy (shareholders have biases, no? corporate profits are paid out primarily to the shareholder class, no?) are to be deemed as freely associating citizens incapable of ethics.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #18
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by systematika View Post
Lawrence Lessig WROTE the freaking CC.
The Creative Commons licenses are useful tools that do not objectively have any political subtext whatsoever. Lessig's politics -- or those of anyone else -- are irrelevant to the genuine utility of the CC licenses.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I was unaware of Lawrence Lessig's role as a board member of Creative Commons, but I am aware of his political stances and disagree with the characterization presented here of them. I don't think Lessig's presence as a founder means that Creative Commons itself is a political organization. I will continue to consider it a valuable resource for creators.
I'm sorry, but it's the exact opposite. It's a tool for weakening the rights of creators in favor of the mob.

Have you read Jaron Lanier's book "You Are Not A Gadget"? If you have not you need to - now. Lanier is a colleague and former member of those circles who has become a very articulate and intelligent debunker of that entire ethos.

Here's a video that gives you a small taste, but it's no substitute for the book:

Old 22nd July 2011
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
Ad hominem. Separate the person from the issue. The question isn't about someone who is on their board, the question is whether they are a political organization, it's about their actions.
Your favorite complaint. Too bad you don't actually understand what it means.

If I say that "you don't know what you're talking about because you're a stupid so-and-so and yer mudder wears combat boots" THAT'S an ad hominem.

If I say "you don't know what you're talking about because...." and proceed to demonstrate where you're actually incorrect that's NOT an ad hominem.

The example in question is NOT an ad hominem.

Of course I don't expect you to understand this because as usual you have your fingers in your ears when it comes to what you don't want to hear. Which on the surface appears to be an ad hominem but in this case isn't because you've repeatedly stated that you have me on ignore, so it's just a simple statement of fact.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
The Creative Commons licenses are useful tools that do not objectively have any political subtext whatsoever. Lessig's politics -- or those of anyone else -- are irrelevant to the genuine utility of the CC licenses.
First off let me start off by saying that in my teens I too read 2600 mag, and had lots of punk friends. I know of discussions as early as 2000 and read lots of publications, everything from the cult of the dead cow to chaos computer club, etc. I was never involved with anything illegal, because I wasn't a very good programmer and didn't have much skill but it interested me. After a while I left because of the PATRIOT act, I knew it was wrong, and cut all of my ties because I didn't want to be associated with that anymore. I got interested in computer music at around the same time, so that was a much more productive way of using my time.

I was in these circles when Creative Commons came out. I am of the same age group as much of these people. I know what went on then, what continued to go on, and what's going on now. We actually talked about some of the same things as anon is doing now, then. The PATRIOT act and 9/11 stirred things up. Many, like myself quit. Some, who were older went to form security companies. Others went and created places like the pirate bay, because at that point there was ongoing dispute and was an easy way to exploit.

It's anything but innocent. It's kool-aid. They have a ton of people duped now.

There's nothing in CC that can't be done with general copyright laws. Period. The whole point of it is to saturate you with alternative labels and fancy idealism to support an alternative mindset, with the obvious goal that myself and others have dictated prior.

Quote:
One man, 21-year-old AT&T customer support contractor named Lance Moore, allegedly used his company-issued VPN login and password to go into the AT&T system and gather data that he then leaked as part of LulzSec's June 25 "50 Days of Lulz" release. The other, 21-year-old University of Central Florida computer student Scott Matthew Arciszewski, allegedly hacked into the FBI contractor Infragard in Tampa and uploaded files from there, which he then tweeted directly to the FBI's own Twitter account. Court documents outline how both suspects used arguably poor judgment when allegedly breaching their respective targets.
In addition to what I posted before, I also found this today.

The same large scale pirates, are the same genius kids hired by corps, government, and given full rides to universities. Put in charge of software design, security, company info, etc because they're good at computers.

In addition they were still the same group of people from the 90s that hacked, then sold those same corps and governments security and said that their security was flawed, so fix it. Blackmail at it's finest. Now they're using that power to gain significantly, in a society with a lot of people that support them because they don't want to pay for media.

Nobody who doesn't care, don't want to learn the science so it's up to those guys.

Some of the recent anon postings on the new pastebin site come from even kids in the army who are supposed to be protecting our country. They might be in defense positions.

I hate to sound like McCarthy, but you know.

Like the discussions on how the RIAA failed the music industry... I seriously think that this was planned, the history of the counter culture involved on the fringe surely suggests it was.



Watch it and read the quotes. The same people who have ties to anon, are the same people pushing CC. They're the same people who are pirates. Because they are ALL anon. Anyone who can't see that is obviously blinded.

Why would you ever want to support that movement at all in any way shape or form? Like I said in my first post, even if it seems innocent on the outside it is not. It's all subversion.

We can say consumer this, and consumer that but the RIAA failed for many reasons that if you go back on the forums you can read it. Some people, even on here may think that this is just an issue with piracy but it is not. It is a one problem, out of a sea of multiple problems. All started by the same movement that's been going on for years, even before Napster existed.

Maybe Gates and Ballmer were trying to tell us something. They were widely ridiculed but it don't seem like such a bad idea now.

Quote:
February 3, 1976

AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS

By William Henry Gates III
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.

What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.


Bill Gates

General Partner, Micro-Soft
Doesn't this sound familiar? They out of all of the people have been the most outspoken about open source, etc. I think they realized something most didn't. Of course Microsoft isn't totally innocent, but I seriously think they were just a company that liked to make software and make money doing so. Nothing wrong with that.
Old 22nd July 2011
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transform View Post
"Microsoft may be Microsoft but they have protection by the internal ethics of a corporate enterprise. Open source has none. Their internal ethics are made by the group, whatever the group wants the group decides."

Ha? Hahahaha? I find it Orwelian to claim that only a private corporation is capable of ethics, whereas an open group of volunteers in a transparent organization, unaided by the corporate profit motive and implicit correlate desire for steeper social hierarchy (shareholders have biases, no? corporate profits are paid out primarily to the shareholder class, no?) are to be deemed as freely associating citizens incapable of ethics.
I'm not sure if "ethics" is the correct word to use concerning corporations like Microsoft.

"Responsibility" and "Self-Interest" might be better terms.

A corporation like Microsoft can be held responsible for their actions and penalized heavily if they act contrary to the public good, hence it is in their self-interest to ensure there are no malicious back doors or logic bombs in their code.

Their is no such check on open source programmers, which is a hell of a good point and pretty scary when you think about it.

And to claim that open source is in any way a "transparent organization" is simply untrue. A hodge-podge such as open source, where anybody, his dog, the dog's fleas, and his criminally insane Uncle Eddie are equally free to contribute is about as transparent as mud.
Old 23rd July 2011
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
The Creative Commons licenses are useful tools that do not objectively have any political subtext whatsoever. Lessig's politics -- or those of anyone else -- are irrelevant to the genuine utility of the CC licenses.
Keep on repeating that - your display of naivete is breathtaking.
Old 23rd July 2011
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
The Creative Commons licenses are useful tools that do not objectively have any political subtext whatsoever. Lessig's politics -- or those of anyone else -- are irrelevant to the genuine utility of the CC licenses.
Except for the fact that CC is completely unnecessary sans for it's political agenda.



Posted from a scoring stage or recording studio via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Old 23rd July 2011
  #25
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by systematika View Post
There's nothing in CC that can't be done with general copyright laws. Period. The whole point of it is to saturate you with alternative labels and fancy idealism to support an alternative mindset, with the obvious goal that myself and others have dictated prior.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand either what the Creative Commons licenses are or what copyright law itself is, because the first sentence of this quote is absolutely incoherent. It was equally incoherent when rack gear said the same thing in the third post of this thread.

The Creative Commons licenses are terms of agreement that creators can choose to grant to third-parties when deciding how to exercise control over their copyrighted works. They're different from typical commercial licenses in that they tend to conditionally grant rights to the licensee rather than explicitly enumerate the rights reserved by the creator. Creative Commons isn't a replacement for copyright. It's a copyright license.

I don't know where this meme that "Creative Commons doesn't do anything ordinary copyright can't" began, but it doesn't make any sense to someone who understands what copyright is, what licensing is, and how the two are different technical and legal concepts.
Old 23rd July 2011
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I think you fundamentally misunderstand either what the Creative Commons licenses are or what copyright law itself is, because the first sentence of this quote is absolutely incoherent. It was equally incoherent when rack gear said the same thing in the third post of this thread.

The Creative Commons licenses are terms of agreement that creators can choose to grant to third-parties when deciding how to exercise control over their copyrighted works. They're different from typical commercial licenses in that they tend to conditionally grant rights to the licensee rather than explicitly enumerate the rights reserved by the creator. Creative Commons isn't a replacement for copyright. It's a copyright license.

I don't know where this meme that "Creative Commons doesn't do anything ordinary copyright can't" began, but it doesn't make any sense to someone who understands what copyright is, what licensing is, and how the two are different technical and legal concepts.
What you don't quite seem to grasp is that CC is, first and foremost, a propaganda tool. It's designed to slowly suck people into the freetard mindset, like a frog in a slowly boiling pan of water.

And it seems to be working on you quite well........
Old 23rd July 2011
  #27
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

The world has gone mad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein
A hodge-podge such as open source, where anybody, his dog, the dog's fleas, and his criminally insane Uncle Eddie are equally free to contribute is about as transparent as mud.
Holy ****. Fine, anyone can contribute, but every aspect of every major release of all Linux-flavours are pored over and rigorously tested by the community and anyone who wants a go, including pretty much ALL of the world's top security analysts (because, y'know, their systems, and the vast majority of systems you pass through on the net, run on Linux...), so unless you're coming out as a Weekly World News conspiracy nut, take a step back and remove the tinfoil-hat.
Corporations and governments, both working with a profit-motive and out of self-interest (neither intrinsically bad, by the way) have been proven time and again to be working against the best interests of their supposed 'userbase', whether installing uninvited, unacknowledged (until they're caught) intrusive spyware onto customers' PCs, or slowly eroding every person's right to travel without being molested, or eavesdropping on... anything they want, really, whatever suits their needs...
Yeah, Open Source, that's what should worry us: really scary.
Quick everyone, delete all Reaktor and Max patches - they're brainwashing us!
Old 23rd July 2011
  #28
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
I think you fundamentally misunderstand either what the Creative Commons licenses are or what copyright law itself is, because the first sentence of this quote is absolutely incoherent. It was equally incoherent when rack gear said the same thing in the third post of this thread.

The Creative Commons licenses are terms of agreement that creators can choose to grant to third-parties when deciding how to exercise control over their copyrighted works. They're different from typical commercial licenses in that they tend to conditionally grant rights to the licensee rather than explicitly enumerate the rights reserved by the creator. Creative Commons isn't a replacement for copyright. It's a copyright license.

I don't know where this meme that "Creative Commons doesn't do anything ordinary copyright can't" began, but it doesn't make any sense to someone who understands what copyright is, what licensing is, and how the two are different technical and legal concepts.
There's nothing stopping you from giving rights to copyrighted works to licensees. Even without Creative Commons. In fact, creative commons itself proves that you can write your own copyright and define the terms of your own license. You may want a lawyer to make sure it's a valid legal document and the license stands up in court if you have violations.

Even the GPL was set up this way, by Richard Stallman. Self-written, with the assistance of a lawyer.

You don't have to use creative commons at all. Generally, some people do not want to give rights to anyone. It's their choice. If your copyright is owned by your record label/publisher they get to set up the license.

It's a non issue. What I and others have problems with is the use of CC to push the movement of undermining normal copyright. For that, it is guilty 100% in many documented cases.

If you want to use it, it's legal. Myself, I would like not to be categorized in that group of people.
Old 23rd July 2011
  #29
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post
Holy ****. Fine, anyone can contribute, but every aspect of every major release of all Linux-flavours are pored over and rigorously tested by the community and anyone who wants a go, including pretty much ALL of the world's top security analysts (because, y'know, their systems, and the vast majority of systems you pass through on the net, run on Linux...), so unless you're coming out as a Weekly World News conspiracy nut, take a step back and remove the tinfoil-hat.

Yeah, Open Source, that's what should worry us: really scary.
Quick everyone, delete all Reaktor and Max patches - they're brainwashing us!
Reaktor and Max is commercial software with an open SDK. It is also a DSP tool. Not even close. I like them both.

As far as the worlds top security analysts? You mean Kevin Mitnick?

They're top security analysts, for a reason you know. They'd rather get the check, than be in prison. Which is fine. Good for them.

However, anonymous is constantly calling these same people out to join their crusade. Some have done so, and some continue to be recruited. We don't even know who they are. This is bad.

However, this group of people also happens to be the same group of people associated with GNU. It also happens to be the same group of people associated with Anonymous and lulzsec. Not all of them, maybe only a few. Maybe a lot. Who knows. With Microsoft, you can't even see certain pieces of code without clearance now. I really gotta give props to Microsoft. They've had ups and downs but they fix their issues. They have to, they're held accountable.

The whole "if there's a bug in the code in open source, someone could find it more easily and fix it" is a myth. They solve incompatibility by a "tough luck" mindset. Most bugs are hardware communication bugs. They're not even Microsoft's fault even though they get stuck fixing incompatibility issues coming from crap programmers for device companies.

As far as the government and corporations putting spyware on our computers, that has been either put in the law (and you would've had to done something bad to get that done) or have had heavy fines put on the companies that did it in the first place, (like sony) because they can be held accountable.

It's the fact that this type of thing can happen under those conditions, which really should make you look at the consequences of putting non-loyal people in charge of your security.
Old 23rd July 2011
  #30
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by systematika View Post
There's nothing stopping you from giving rights to copyrighted works to licensees. Even without Creative Commons. In fact, creative commons itself proves that you can write your own copyright and define the terms of your own license. You may want a lawyer to make sure it's a valid legal document and the license stands up in court if you have violations.

...

It's a non issue. What I and others have problems with is the use of CC to push the movement of undermining normal copyright. For that, it is guilty 100% in many documented cases.
Yes; there IS nothing stopping one from issuing licenses similar to those of the Creative Commons suite. The reason CC licenses are popular is not because it's the only way to implement these terms, it's because they're ready-made, machine-readable, human-readable, legally-sound, and widely-known.

You don't have to have an agenda to use Creative Commons licenses. One is not naive to use Creative Commons licenses. There is no sinister movement underlying Creative Commons licenses. It's not a subversive plot. It's not the end of copyright. Indeed, Creative Commons licenses are wholly depedent on existing copyright law. They're simply freely-available, well-constructed licenses that can be used when appropriate by those who care to.

You are spreading uninformed and false fear, uncertainty, and doubt when you paint the Creative Commons licenses as a malevolent force. No one pushes Creative Commons to undermine "normal copyright." It is not "guilty in 100% of many documented cases." I do not believe you are a native English speaker so I will not fault you for it, but you are using the words of this language very inappropriately here.

If the world has gone mad, it's not because of the terms of copyright licenses. Creative Commons is not the bogeyman you want it to be.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump