Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I missed your preface :-/
if you bother to make a statement regarding its permitted and not permitted use, aren't you also commenting on how valuable you think that others ought to consider it
Nope, not any more than someone who has "All Rights Reserved" which is the assumed position under the law in countries who adhere to the Berne Convention. Without a specific licence declared, your entire blog is copyright, whether you claim it or not.
CC makes no more assumption of value than does unadorned copyright. It requires copyright law in order to make it work. It just adds some shades of grey into what's possible and what's not.
It's not about regulation, it's about easing the requirements of regulation.
Claim to be a what now?
Sorry, I must have misread your comments to Russell the other day.
-
It makes a difference to something that is worthwhile.
That's a pretty arrogant approach, especially from a blogger, Gio. That blog is worthwhile to at least one person, the one who wrote it. If this were further back in the thread I'd be tempted to ask for evidence of your divinity in making such a judgement. If you don't like it, don't read it. But you can't deny the right of the individual to put out their own content in the form that they most feel comfortable with and still claim to be an anarchist.
Most blogs that I see CC come with, nobody would bother to quote, permission or no permission
Thanks so much. I'm sure that will keep all of us who understand Creative Commons awake at nights.
-
He was, pretty specifically, talking about sitcoms, rather than National Geographic (at least he was in the videos, of which the article is nearly a transcript).
And what he's talking about is the time spent doing the activities, not the activities themselves. If most of your time was spent reading, rather than watching television, then that is where you'd have to carve your "spare time" from. But he's talking about mass populations who, evidence suggests, watch more television than they read - you are in a minority, sir.
I used to be a voracious reader. I'd far rather read a book than watch TV. About 10 years ago, I stopped, for various medical reasons. I now find it hard to get through a novel, confining most of my reading to non-fiction, where I used to get through 2 or 3 a week. But I still don't watch that much television. All that time I used to spend reading is going into the net, because I can still sti at a screen and read, and write. Perhaps it's only an illusion of interaction, of participation, but as Shirky said about the WoW people, at least it's something.
You make a good point about work time but, as I work for myself, I decide what is work time and what isn't, as long as the work gets done. ;-)
-
Even there, the hand of the publicist and PR specialists are working. Go and ask Mark Kneebone how it works. He's a wizard.
Oh sure, and that will never go away. But that's the equivalent of hiring Mr Green to cut your lawns, yeah? You could do it yourself, but you're busy touring so let's put it in the hands of a specialist. You don't have to handover ownership of the lawn in order to get it mowed.
So actually, there's room for lots of Mark Kneebones to pop up and make a living facilitating other players.
I never meant to imply that every artist had to do it themselves, just that they could, successfully do so.
-
I was referring to what I perceive to be the implication of that statement in Banksy's book. Nothing to do with what you personally might have said or written.
Your inference may or may not have any connection to what Banksy may or may not be implying, hmm?
I was hoping somebody would call me on this, I deserve it... and nothing to do with ethics, really, I just find it a little pretentious, sometimes (it depends on the blog, and that surely makes *me* pretentious, and elitist): it's your own wee diary, you're giving it to the commons as if the commons cared, or as if it made any meaningful difference whether you licensed it in that particular way or not.
Glad to oblige.
CC is not about giving anything away to a mythical commons that will cherish and care for it. It's about permissions. Copyright (as we know it) is about restrictions, i.e. this is mine and you can't do anything with it without my express permission. CC is about expressly giving permission to do certain things with a piece of work, and those permissions can vary from "make sure you spell my name correctly and acknowledge me" through to "you can't make money from my work without giving me some, so call me and we'll talk" (qrossly over-simplified, I know). It's the equivalent of saying "here's what I allow you to do with my content, don't bother me if it falls under these conditions" which saves time and angst for everyone. By no means does it mean that copyright no longer is held by the creator of the work, only that people are free to use the work in specified ways.
That makes a difference, whether you perceive it or not.
-
Giovanni, I'm interested that you don't agree with it. Can you expand, now that your commenting capability seems to be working?
-
Besides, people arguing that "It's not theft" are usually arguing against change, for a given value of change that equals more and more restrictive legislation.
-
"It's not theft!" is the worst argument in favour of change.
Just as "Copyright is theft!" is the worst argument for rushing through legislation which will have serious side effects without achieving it's major aim. Whether you are discussing the DMCA or s92a or C-61 in Canada, the distinctions do matter. If you can't get the definitions right, you can't discuss the matter rationally.
Littering is also illegal. By your reasoning, that makes it the same as theft, therefore we can say that "littering is theft" and thus punishable by jail terms.
-
Hmm, so the quote tag is case sensitive, to boot..
We learn something new everyday.
-
It's not just the hipocrisy that is irksome, but also this idea that people that make art to live are ethically inferior to those who have another source of income,
I don't think anybody has said that. I certainly haven't. My point is that if you make money at it, it's a bonus.
or have been helped by public institutions or private benefactors (or their parents).
I don't understand you at all. Please elucidate.
Creative Commons licences on people's blogs irk me for similar reasons.
Que? WTF has CC got to do with ethics? Have you not been sleeping properly, Giovanni?
In conclusion: I am easily irked.
Clearly ;-)