The Anth Quarterly article is the same as the section in the book (293ff), except that in the book, he writes:
Certainly, whatever culture is, it is separate from law. Law is, to borrow Sharon Traweek’s famous phrase, “a culture of no culture” in this sense. It is not the cultural and normative practices of legal scholar jusdges, lawyers legislators, and lobbyinsts that determine what laws woll look like, but their careful, expert, noncultural ratiocination. In this sense, punting to culture implies that laws are the result of human design, wheras culture is the result of human action, but not of human design. Law is systematic and tractable; culture may have a deep structure, but it is intractable to human design. It can, however, be channeled and tracked, nudged or guided, by law. -p298
In the article, he says rather
On the one hand, Lessig overstates the case: he implies that our “culture” or our “life-world” is a fragile sphere separate from the political, legal, or economic lives of people. For we anthropologists, whatever culture is or was, law, economy, and politics are part of it—and, as with Sahlins, we consider it impossible for culture to disappear in any meaningful sense (even if we also worry that particular kinds of practices are threatened by capitalism, imperialism, or neo-colonialism.)
On the other hand, Lessig understates (with resoect to anthropologists) the methodological innovation represented by this new way (for lawyers and economists) of thinking about culture as a congeries of “social meaning” or a collection of customs. – p 555
Common sense… cite CBC’s Jim Prentice interview about enforceability
“if statutory damages are … just the price of the CD … not much incentive…”
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13 (CanLII) Print: PDF Format Date: 2004-03-04 Docket: 29320 Parallel citations: ? 1 S.C.R. 339 • (2004), 236 D.L.R. (4th) 395 • (2004), 30 C.P.R. (4th) 1 • (2004), 247 F.T.R. 318 URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc13/2004scc13.html Noteup: Search for decisions citing this decision
Nimus: Creative Commons is really an anti-commons that peddles a capitalist logic of privatization under a deliberately misleading name. Its purpose is to help the owners of intellectual property catch up with the fast pace of information exchange, not by freeing information, but by providing more sophisticated definitions for various shades of ownership and producer-control.
Kleiner: Poverty of Networks:
The idea of producer-control is presented in contrast to the idea of a cultural “commons” a common stock of value that all can draw from and contribute to. The “commons,” then, denies the right of producer-control and instead insists on the freedom of consumers. Thus, the “free” in “free culture” specifically refers to naturally unhindered freedom of “consumers” to make use of the cultural common stock and not the state-enforced “freedom” of “producers” to control the use of “their” work. Or, more to the point, the idea of a cultural commons does away with the distinction of producers and consumers of culture — seeing them as being in fact the same actors in an ongoing iterative cultural discourse.
The point of the above is clear, the Creative Commons, is to help “you” (the “Producer”) to keep control of “your” work. The right of the “consumer” is not mentioned, neither is the division of “producer” and “consumer” disputed. The Creative “Commons” is thus really an Anti-Commons, serving to legitimise, rather than deny, Producer-control and serving to enforce, rather than do away with, the distinction between producer and consumer.
Copyleft Idiosyntactix 2006, all rights detourned under the terms of the Woody Guthrie General License Agreement.
This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.
I see Creative Commons as being the Sierra Club of IP; Negativland is more like Earth Firsters.
– Negativland’s Mark Hosler on Copyright & Creative Commons – http://youtube.com/watch?v=uy7fgfodly4
On the DCH E-Copyright fund:
…creation of these new online copyright licensing systems will allow Access Copyright, COPIBEC and RightsMarket Inc. to better manage copyrights by enabling them to license copyrighted works quickly and efficiently through a seamless process. These systems will be exceptional tools for consumers from around the world who wish to acquire certain rights for Canadian copyrighted textual and musical works.
CC Rights Expression Language: http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2008-08-22-a.html
Is Creative Commons building a database of licensed content?
Absolutely not. We believe in the Net, not an information bank controlled by a single organization. We are building tools so that the semantic web can identify and sort licensed works in a distributed, decentralized manner. We are not in the business of collecting content, or building databases of content.
Kalev Leetaru, FirstMonday 13 (10)
As a consortium of independent partners, however, OCA allows each of its member organizations set their own distinct rights policies, rather than enforcing a single global set of rights. This forces users to inspect the rights statement of every single work they find to determine their rights to the content (such as whether it can be redistributed). Further complicating matters, the OCA entry for most works does not provide information on the rights restrictions for a given work, only the copyright status of the original printed material. To determine the rights status of any particular work, a user must follow the link in both the Digitizing Sponsor and Book Contributor metadata fields to view the rights restrictions enforced by the two organizations. A book contributor, such as an academic library, may place restrictions on its works regardless of the organization scanning it, while the scanning body (the sponsor) may place restrictions on works it scans, regardless of source. Hence, the burden falls to the user to read and legally interpret the rights statements of both entities before being able to determine the rights status of any particular work and whether a particular usage would be permitted.
I also avoid the GPL because any license short of public domain
creates needless hassles for developers and distributors, who must document the licenses of all the components they use and check that those licenses are compatible and give them the authority to grant the rights they wish to grant on their final product.