Lessig Proposes "Creative Commons"

cmuncey writes: "Lawrence Lessig's newest effort is profiled this morning in a SFGate.com article this morning. Creative Commons will offer customizable flexible intellectual property licenses that can be used by artists, writers, and others in moving their works from copyright to public domain in a controlled manner. The aricle also cites plans to create a 'conservancy' for what looks like orphanware. This is a joint work of Lessig and people from MIT, Duke, Harvard and Villanova."

Some more information

[cmuncey]

There's an .pdf article with some interesting ideas linked to this at Lessig's site - Reclaiming a Commons [lessig.org]

Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters:

[cmuncey]

Are you objecting to Lessig's ideas, or agreeing with them? Lessig's positions on issues like this (such as the continual extension of copyright) are well known and cited in this article as well as the many other writings on his own site.

As for Lessig being aligned with our 'corporate masters', I really don't think that Microsoft would agree . . .

Real Value vs. Perceived Value

[Bonker]

pay us for what you want--it must have value since you want it in the public domain, and it's our duty to extract that value for our shareholders.

The problem with this argument... and the fallacy that so many corporate types fall for is that value is not an absolute.

Case in point... I am a PC owner who has aquired a Motorola processor for an older Mac. I *could* spend my money and try to build a system around that processor, but I'd rather spend it on a newer system with with an AMD processor.

I could try to sell it to a mac-owner, but most Mac ownwers are used to spending a little more on hardware than PC owners. Most probably will never have a use for my processor.

The one person who does have a use for my processor is the poor kid who's managed to scrounge, beg, and borrow all the parts necessary to build a Macintosh Quadra-era PC, but lacks a processor to make it run. (This exmple may be flawed...)

The point is, the processor only has value to someone who can't afford to buy it. It doesn't have value to anyone who could afford to buy it because they can already afford better, just because the tech has advanced so far so quickly.

The same is true of 'orphanware' and 'abandonware'. I would never seriously consider paying to have a Donkey Kong arcade machine. It's old, clunky, and probably smells of whatever bar or grease-pit it's been rotting in for the last 2 decades. I highly doubt that Midway has sold any to anyone but the most rabid of collectors in at least a decade.

To download the rom for free, (and illegally), gives me a great deal of satisfaction playing a old, great game I would not otherwise ever engage in.

While the hardware and software combination may have a small amount of value to collectors, the software itself has no value at all, except to those who wouldn't have it unless they could get it for free.

Lessig Q&A

[asv108]

If you haven't read it already, check out Lessig's ten questions [slashdot.org] from December.

Re:Devil's advocate ?s from corporate masters:

[deebaine]

The argument that corporations are understood to exist for the public benefit is abstracted one step too far. Lawmakers felt that a legal entity shielding individuals from liability would be beneficial, hence they created the idea of a corporations. This much is true, that the general idea of a corporation was deemed to have public benefit.

However, it does not seem to me that any specific corporation need have public benefit. Reading through the Massachusetts General Laws governing corporations, I find nothing to suggest that Massachusetts corporations are understood to have any requirement to act in anything other than their own interests. This may be different in your state. However, in Massachusetts, no such requirement seems to exist. The relevant laws appear in the Massachusetts General Laws Chapters 156 and 156B; I'd be interested to know if I am missing something.

-db