Dvorak on Creative Commons 522
pHatidic writes "In a recent article, John Dvorak trashes creative commons as being, 'one of the dumbest initiatives ever put forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb on the same scale as believing the Emperor is wearing fabulous new clothes.' His main arguments are that CC unnecessarily complicates copyright law, and that the name sounds dumb."
Creative Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't complicate Copyright law. It makes it simpler and more accessible.
Nothing to see here, move along. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dvorak: -10 Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Some uses for novelists, some criticisms (Score:5, Insightful)
One additional thing. The humbug would claim that in many instances Creative Commons does nothing that isn't already done by existing copyright, except be trendy. Well, don't overlook trendy, I say. Many younger people on the internet these days have a clue what Creative Commons means, and know little to nothing about copyright. They may respect something labelled Creative Commons, and that's worth something. Also, it's nice to see that certain material is expected to be taken, and the author's permission is explicit and clear. It's possible to end up in court with legitimate fair use when the author and the user disagree about what that means.
And finally, even Dvorak is clueless when it comes to copyright. He says you have to add "Copyright 2005" to something to copyright it. You don't. It's automatically covered (you can still do the paperwork and register it, but in principle you don't). So here's a guy writing an article related to copyright who doesn't know the law, criticizing Creative Commons under the assumption everyone already knows the copyright laws.
Creative Commons... not too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
http://slashdvorak.org/ (Score:5, Insightful)
Awareness (Score:3, Insightful)
Hadn't the selection of a license been included in these webapps (flickr, some bloggin software, etc) I really doubt the users would think about these matters, less pick a license for their content.
It has made it simpler for the publisher and the "consumer".
Quite different from what Dvorak says:
"Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders..."
Dvorak is definetly trolling there.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along. (Score:4, Insightful)
Too true, Dvorak is little more than a professional troll. Sadly, it's easier to get attention by writing something intentionally controversial than practically any other method, witness Marliyn Manson and Eminem.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along. (Score:1, Insightful)
He tends to pick a sensitive subject, then make things up in a convoluted logic that's factoid and truism based.
For example... "GPL sucks. I mean it really sucks. What's with expecting people to do work for free. How do these people expect to eat? They say they'll go to a 'service based' profit method, but last I looked a service based business was in a cutthroat industry where you're just competing to do the same old work that someone else next door is (after all, they have access to everything else you do under the GPL, you're not providing anything different to your competitors) and prices just go lower and lower, and nobody makes any money resulting in a situation where nobody gets good service"
A paragraph filled with truisms and half facts that could be easily believed by people not in the know.
And for dvorak, he's writing for people not in the know. the IQ-of-70 among the population, the children who can't think.
Dvorak misses the point (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Some uses for novelists, some criticisms (Score:2, Insightful)
This line seems to imply that CC somehow limits the fair use that you get under normal copyright law -- a point that Dvorak made in TFA. I thought CC operated within copyright law. Is there a basis under which CC can supersede copyright law, and place more restrictions on fair use than is already available with conventional copyrights?
Or am I just reading this wrong?
Re:Creative Commons (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is knowing how to word one in a way that says people can use it for non comercial purposes but not comercial purposses so that it will hold up in court.
After all, IANAL!
Please stop posting this shit (Score:5, Insightful)
If we ignore him, he will go away. As it is, every time he posts one of these articles his employer gets a nice big boost to their advertising revenue.
Re:Dvorak: -10 Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
He is not really a troll. He just publishes flamebait. It is not like anything he publishes is offensive in itself. It is just lacking in insight and is intended to create controversy. As such, it really is not that different from a lot of the posts here on /.
Re:Creative Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
The point was that Creative Commons gives you an easy way to express your wishes as to what rights to grant people. Without it, you have to figure out the legalese to write yourself, and chances are you'll leave a loophole and won't have the time or money to fight someone if they take advantage of it. With Creative Commons, you are sure that your choices are expressed properly, both in legalese and in English. Basically, if you want to selectively share your works, Creative Commons is like those "Living-Will-and-Testament-in-a-box" thingies--it gives you pre-written legalese so you don't have to hire a lawyer.
Journalism at its finest. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice to know he seeks independent, unbiased views. Next up, Dvorak interviews Steve Ballmer on the benefits of Linux...
Re:Creative Commons (Score:4, Insightful)
Tiny good point among the chaff (Score:4, Insightful)
Other than that point, though, the article is worthless. The same principle that always must be pointed out with the GPL applies to CC as well: by default, copyright gives you *no* rights to copy except fair use, so any of these licenses can only *add* rights. In the case of the GPL, they add "you can copy this freely as long as you publish the source to any changes you redistribute", etc. The CC licenses work exactly the same way, with a different set of rights given.
fair use FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet every single CC license clearly states "Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above."
Lessig wrote a very interesting book [free-culture.cc] on the subject. An articulate response to that would be great, but Dvorak is just spreading clueless FUD.
Once again, Dvorak doesn't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
to quote from his "column" (used in a very loose sense of the word):
There are several things that bother me about this initiative. First, Creative Commons is similar to a license. You sign up with the group and post a message saying that your material is protected or covered by Creative Commons. This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes. Why not commercial purposes? What difference does it make, if everyone is free and easy about this? In other words, a noncommercial site could distribute a million copies of something and that's okay, but a small commercial site cannot deliver two copies if it's for commercial purposes. What is this telling me?
What it's telling you, John, is that you're a dumbfuck who hasn't figured out that the CC license is a MODULAR license.
The basic CC license is, essentially, "public domain" -- there are no restrictions on your reproduction of the material. CC then offers legally defined exceptions. With all of the CC terms in place, you have essentially the full standard U.S. copyright restrictions.
What CC does is it gives you a legally well-formed copyright system that lets you protect your work, yet lets it be redistributed somewhat more freely than typical material, but not-quite public domain free.
it just so happens that one of those optional restrictions is "no commercial distribution". I'd like to point out that this does not in any way trump "fair use", something that Dvorak would know if he had the IQ of a pet rock.
as to why I use CC: I want to allow my works (should I actually get around to putting some content on my website... any day now, folks... ;) to be distributed, and I want to encourage their distribution -- however, I want them to be protected. Namely, I want credit for what I do, and I want more people to release their work freely. So I have a "By, Share Alike [creativecommons.org]" License -- Commercial derivations are perfectly ok.
Can we please not have any more Dvorak on /.? He's just so mind-bogglingly stupid, he makes me feel physically ill. Seriously.
A+ for Dvorak. F for Slashdot. (Score:1, Insightful)
And wouldn't understand it if they had.
It also makes sense that computer geeks would be in favor of fewer copyrights, but CC is plain old ridiculous.
Your copyright is established the minute you write something unless that right is otherwise waived. Period. This 'Creative Commons' crap is pseudo-intelligent nonsense. Yet the ever-growing online community will likely continue to use it like the sheep they are, and those who simply can't understand a bad idea when they see one will help perpetuate it.
I'll stick to the legal copyright that ensures my work when I create it, thanks. I'd rather not risk losing it.
Hey, John - i got two words for you (Score:3, Insightful)
gsf.org/copyright
the worst part of this is...i fscking clicked on his link...
crap, frazzel
shit.
aw hell, i guess the damage is done, i might as well read what he has to say.
missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole reason CC exists is because people are getting sued left and right for using someone else's work. He says "Creative Commons tries to insert itself as another layer into a system that already protects content developers like me to an extreme.", but CC is set up the other way. If you write something and want to make sure people understand that they can copy/redistribute/etc *without* worrying about getting sued, then they use CC. If you want to be a dick and restrict the crap you create then you can stick with traditional copyrights.
CC is *not* a way to retain *more* rights, it's a way to clearly share your work with others.
Severely Mis/Underinformed (Score:2, Insightful)
I have begged critics of the system, such as The Register's Andrew Orlowski, to explain to me how Creative Commons works or what it's supposed to do that current copyright law doesn't do. He says, "It does nothing."
Of course it does nothing outside of existing copyright law. Creative Commons is a licensing scheme that works within exisiting copyright law.
This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes. Why not commercial purposes?
The answer, of course, is that Creative Commons licenses allow creators to specify which things are allowed. If you want to allow commercial use, allow it. If you don't want to allow commercial use, then don't. It's not that difficult.
This is nonsense. Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something. And that has not changed. And I could always use excerpts for commercial or noncommercial purposes. It's called fair use. I can still do that, but Creative Commons seems to hint that with its license means that I cannot. At least not if I'm a commercial site and the noncommercial proviso is in effect. This is a bogus suggestion, because Creative Commons does not supersede the copyright laws.(emphasis added)
You mean fair use like me quoting segments of your article, John? Anyway, the relevant issue there is that word, "ask". Having to ask permission to do something is certainly no the same as having the right to do something. Creative Commons licenses give end-users rights to do certain things. Yeah, the courts usually allow people to get away with certain kinds of use that violate the letter of copyright law, which fall under the domain of "fair use", but fair use is not really written into most countries' copyright laws. Most publishers, etc. won't allow their content creators to use "fair use" works, as the "fair" part can be challenged in court, which is expensive. The nice thing with Creative Commons licenses is that the rights users have are formulated clearly and it's basically impossible to get very far with suing somebody for use that complies with the license.
I'd keep going, there are more problems with the article, but this post is too long already.
Re:Please stop posting this shit (Score:3, Insightful)
No he won't. Even if everyone who hates him stop linking to him (which won't happen), many others (like magazines) will still pick up on it.
Consider this: The guy writes something that's completely wrong. (Done with the jokes yet? Good. Let's keep moving.) If Slashdot links to it, there will be thousands of people who other people trust to know this stuff that have had time to go through his argument or disinformation and be able to counter it. Would you rather have people accept his writing as right?
Please ban Dvorak (Score:5, Insightful)
NOTHING by Dvorak has any place in a
Re:Creative Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A+ for Dvorak. F for Slashdot. (Score:3, Insightful)
What a sparkling endorsement of the law -- "Our law is so ridden with bullshit, even intelligent people can't comprehend it!" What's your point again?
Who is this guy again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Creative Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
The HTML source is a lot more interesting, as it is there, easy to read, and viewable if you look for it. I would point out that the copyright notice on a book is just inside the front cover, and not slathered over every page, so it is quite legitimate in my opinion, as it's where it can reasonably be expected to be. Much like a book, people aren't going to see the © without knowing where to look or doing a very thorough search.
The law is intended to be used and interpreted by reasonably people. Unfortunately, reasonable is subjective, so theres going to be disagreement. But if you respect the author, the work, and the spirit and intent of the law, I think the "trouble" of contacting someone should at least be attempted. You are using a work that is copyrighted in total in the case of the image. In classic copyright law, you need written permission to do that. So fine, don't use the CC, and see how it's so much easier to follow classic copyright law. Then you might agree that Dvorak is being a bit narrow-minded on this. Or at least, he's not acting like a reasonable and respecting individual. Not that he usually does in the articles, but that's his style in his writing.
If you just ignore him he'll go away. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Creative Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly its not for him. He's looking at it completely backwards, and obviously doesn't understand. Maybe someone can explain it to him.
Career Troll (Score:1, Insightful)
If we ignore him, do you think he will go away?
What does Dvorak want? (Score:3, Insightful)
But then I realized, at some point you need to sit back and remember that people have different motives for doing things. For example, when Dvorak writes a column, his goal is to generate ad revenue for his employer. Factual accuracy and an even-handed approach to the issues don't do much for that goal.
Re:Some uses for novelists, some criticisms (Score:3, Insightful)
But no one can publish it without your ok, which I hope involves some filthy lucre.
I don't mean to take you to task for any imprecision in what you said, I was just making trying to make a point regarding the first sale doctrine. And I wanted to point out that distribution is different from publishing. Publishing involves copying or printing the book, which infringes on the copyright. Distribution is selling or giving away the book.
Re:Creative Commons (Score:2, Insightful)
Some (CC) licenses serve a purpose, such as the ones that are similar to the GPL.
Dvorak is remarking that some of them *don't* serve a purpose, such as the one for Public Domain works. Indeed, what *is* the purpose of a specific license to mark that a work is under public domain? Why not just say that in the first place?
His beef is not with the more useful licenses, but rather with the ones that are useless, like the public domain.
Re:Creative Commons (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not CC, that's just regular copyright. It's pretty hard to simplify copyright--everything you create is copyrighted!
Did you miss the part where he said "but still let other people use my work in limited ways"? That's something you have to do through licensing terms. Copyright is pretty much an all-or-nothing affair all by itself. Creative Commons licensing provides an easy way to permit various degrees of non-commercial duplication and re-use, while still preventing some jackass from selling a book titled "Funniest Blog Posts Evar!" without sending you a dime. Please elaborate how it is you think that copyright law alone covers this?
Stop giving the open source movement undue credit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly hope this is not the start of trying to give the open source movement more credit for work it did not do. Creative Commons licenses are not licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative and for good reason. CC licenses are not to be used for computer software [creativecommons.org]. The Creative Commons organization lists the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL as licenses to consider for software. People on /. routinely cite the GPL as an "open source" license despite that:
It's hard to respect any columnists anymore... (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to be very naïve about this. I used to believe that columnists, through their transparant attempts for readership, tried to be fair and honest about what they did. Then I heard an interview with a pretty prominent columnist at an even more prominent newspaper say that she routinely wrote things SHE disagreed with because the point of writing a column is to get people talking.
So, they can and will say anything to get readers. Many of you may think this is a "duh" moment, but it was amazing for me. Dvorak could write an article about how "some people" think that, for instance, Linus is evil and should be dead. (Hey, it's plausible. I'm sure in the entire world there are two people that don't like Linus enough and wish he were dead.) That'll generate a lot of controversy and get more readers. But is it right?! Where's the line?
More and more often, it seems like there isn't any line.
It's clear to me now. Columnists are professional trolls.
(Heh. I guess this means that all those folks that get modded down will wind up working in "journalism" some day. Quite possible. Imagine! A G.N.A.A. feature. Some trolls can dream.)
Re:Creative Commons (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks to CC I can do that without having to hire a lawyer (who may not have focused hard enough on copyright law in the first place).
Don't want to turn this into a flame, but I've scanned through the threads in this article and I can't figure out why it is that so many lawyer types can't grok the idea of individuals wanting to GIVE UP some rights. They all assume CC must be meant to enhance copyright protection, and they see no point, since the protection is already there. It's really telling, isn't it?
Re:Creative Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
While your statement is correct, sadly that sort of phrasing leaves a loophole for trolls like Dvorak to twist your words.
A better way of saying it would be that "Creative Commons helps you", not "allows" - that makes it clear that CC is not doing anything funky, it's just providing a simple and straightforward framework that empowers ordinary people to share their creative works on their own terms.
That's just it... (Score:3, Insightful)
He _does_ understand. He's just trolling for ad hits.
Re:I made Front Page (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes.
4) Change your name to Roland Piquepaille.
What gets me is the response... (Score:3, Insightful)
Creative Commons is neither a replacement for nor a substitute of Copyright Law. Creative Commons, like the GPL, is a license that works separately from Copyright. For instance, Microsoft owns the Copyright to the Windows Operating Shi^H^H^HSystem, but end users are allowed to use the OS under the terms and conditions specified by the EULA--a license that limits the user's rights in addition to the limitations of Copyright. All Creative Commons does is provide licenses that afford end users more extensive rights to distribute and/or modify a work under a CC license; the Copyright is still held by the author.
Unlike some posters, I do believe Dvorak is a troll. He is deliberately misrepresenting numerous facts, all of which are easily accessible on the Internet. Then again, I might be mistaken--perhaps he isn't misrepresenting facts and is, instead, just an idiot. He apparently doesn't know the difference between a license and a Copyright. I wish more Slashdot posters would debate on these terms, too, as it proves quite simply Dvorak is a published troll.
(Slightly off-topic: I'm really beginning to wonder if the Anonymous Coward is really just reserved for Dvorak so he can post incognito.)