[Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed Creative Commons license
rory
rory at athabascau.ca
Fri Nov 30 12:41:35 MST 2012
Stephen,
For the third time, I would ask you to provide one example of CC content
that is locked down and that people cannot freely access. That would be
helpful.
I think you are confounding the difference between access to the
copyright and access to one copy of the copright. A prined book is
locked down and I can make one whether or not you add the NC
restriction. I can also put your NC content on my server and lock it
down. The NC licence does not prevent me from doing this either legally
or in any other way. A for profit company can also do that with you NC
licence. It just can't sell it without your permission. It can use it in
any other way that it wants.
But, please I ask for the fourth time please provide me an example of
the lock down that you are referring to.
All the best.
Rory
On 12-11-30 12:21 PM, Stephen Downes wrote:
>
> Hiya Rory,
>
> > You must have taken an ethics course. Your ability to rationalize
> shows the mind of a well-trained ethicist, who can justify any position.
>
> To my perspective, it is the people who are calling commercial
> resources that you have to pay for 'free' who are the ones doing the
> rationalizing.
>
> One of the advantages of having taken (and taught) ethics courses is
> the ability to see that even for such common terms as 'free' there are
> different perspectives.
>
> 'Free popcorn' inside the movie lobby is indeed free -- if you are
> already inside the movie lobby. From the perspective of the person who
> cannot afford a movie ticket, however, the popcorn is not free at all.
>
> A 'CC-by' OER can be used freely by anyone, true -- but only by
> someone who already has one. If you are locked outside the movie
> theatre, the resource is no longer free (even if, if you had one, you
> could do whatever you wanted with it).
>
> It's hard for me, from my perspective, not to see disagreement on this
> point as willful denial of the existence of other perspectives. It's
> as though the people inside the movie theatre simply refuse to
> contemplate the idea that there might even be people outside, unable
> to get in
>
> -- Stephen
>
> *From:*oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca
> [mailto:oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca] *On Behalf Of *rory
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2012 2:01 PM
> *To:* oer-community
> *Subject:* Re: [Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed
> Creative Commons license
>
> Stephen,
> You must have taken an ethics course. Your ability to rationalize
> shows the mind of a well-trained ethicist, who can justify any position.
> The Public Domain (PD) is the MOST open, which used to be the case
> prior to 1963 when the Common Law countries adopted the European
> approach to copyright i.e. all content is copyrighted by default.
> So, in fact, the CC licence were formulated proceeding from the PD.
> For most (if not all) practical purposes CC does not need the BY
> designation. People who us PD works invariably mention the author in
> any case because to do otherwise would be a misrepresentation. So
> CC-BY is almost synonymous with PD. Neither PD not CC add
> "Commercial". ALL uses mean ALL uses.
> See comments below
>
> On 12-11-30 7:05 AM, Downes, Stephen wrote:
>
> Ilkka Tuomi wrote,
>
> > Logically, CC-BY-NC is a subset of CC-BY. In this sense, it is
> more restricted.
>
> Not so. No entity in the set "CC-BY-NC" is also in the set "CC-BY".
>
> RORY>>>ALL content in CC-BY-NC is in CC and in CC-BY. Please provide
> me with ONE example of ANY content that is NC that cannot also be used
> by anyone?? It doesn't exist. They are not disjuncts.
>
> It's a trick of the way CC licenses were originally formulated. The
> designations /in fact/ mean:
>
> - CC-by-Commercial (CC-by-C)
>
> - CC-by-Noncommercial (CC-by-NC)
>
> So as you can see, the two sets are disjuncts, specially, not-C and C
>
> RORY>> There is no trick. The CC should be CC-ALL and it is CC-ALL as
> a licence that is trying to recapture the PD. It does not mean
> CC-Commercial as this would not make sense. It would mean that the
> licences are restricted to Commercial use only.
> Each addition, including CC itself and BY and SA and NC are
> restrictions on the PD.
>
> The creators of CC treated 'Commercial' as the default. There's no
> reason why they should have had to do this. They could have
> established the licenses the other way (indeed, the way I would have
> done it):
>
> RORY>>> There is every historical reason to do this. They had to do
> this because CC is an attempt to return to the Public Domain by
> overcoming legal restrictions. This was the most logical step.
>
>
>
> CC-by -- allows all free uses, ie., no limitations on access and
> distribution
>
> CC-by-C -- allows commercial vendors to restrict distribution
> contingent upon payment
>
> RORY>>> This is incorrect. Allowing commercial vendors to restrict
> distribution does not in any way stop you from using the works. They
> can restrict it, but others can use it if they wish. You can buy the
> bottled water from a restricted distribution vending machine or you
> can use the free tap. Actually, restricting content in your house by
> copying the text on paper does not allow free use. Now they own the
> book. They have locked it down like the vendors who sell it on their
> web site. But in both case you can still access and duplicate the content.
>
> In /fact/, each of CC-by-C and CC-by-NC create restrictions. They
> create different sets of restrictions, which may be more or less
> limiting, depending on your perspective.
>
> RORY>> No they don't. There are NO restrictions on CC -BY as it
> stands. What part of the word "ALL" do you not understand? There is no
> CC-C; it is CC-ALL because after CC, the added conditions are
> Restrictions NOT allowances.
>
>
> The 'commercial-by-default' world in which we live is something recent
> and something that has been created through the use of language and
> the setting of assumptions. The creation of a 'non-commercial' clause
> is a way of setting 'commercial' as the default. It makes it /seem/ as
> though 'commercial' implies no additional restrictions. But it's just
> a trick of language, just a trick of perspective.
>
> RORY>>> Not true. The Public Domain was the default and that goes back
> to the beginning of writing in one opinion, but at least to 1710 with
> the first copyright statute. PD always allowed commercial use. Your
> interpretation is the sleight of hand. There is no trick of
> perspective. ALL means ALL.
>
> That's why it's false and misleading to say that 'CC-by-C' is 'more
> free', and why people shouldn't do it.
>
> -- Stephen
>
> Stephen Downes
>
> Research Officer | Agent de recherche
>
> National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada
>
> Institute for Information Technology | Institut de technologie de
> l'information
>
> 100 des Aboiteaux Street, Suite 1100 | 100, rue des Aboiteaux, suite 1100
>
> Moncton, New Brunswick | Moncton (Nouveau-Brunswick) E1A 7R1
>
> Tel.: (506) 861 0955
>
> Fax: (506) 851 3630
>
> Stephen.Downes at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca <mailto:Stephen.Downes at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>__
>
> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
>
> *From:*oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca
> <mailto:oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca>
> [mailto:oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca] *On Behalf Of *Ilkka Tuomi
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2012 4:28 AM
> *To:* oer-community
> *Subject:* Re: [Oer-community] On-line education is using a flawed
> Creative Commons license
>
> A good conversation...
>
> Stephen, it may be useful to distinguish between "abstract" openness
> and outcomes. Logically, CC-BY-NC is a subset of CC-BY. In this sense,
> it is more restricted. You are mainly talking about outcomes, i.e.,
> whether the licensed resources will, or will not, be more or less
> freely accessible to potential users. In practice, you have to make
> quite a few assumptions about the actions of the different players,
> which may or may not be empirically right. E.g.:
>
> "- licenses that allow commercial use are /less free/ than those that
> do not, because they allow commercial entities to charge fees for
> access, to lock them behind digital locks, and to append conditions
> that prohibit their reuse"
>
> As has been pointed out in the discussion, CC-BY-NC allows commerical
> players to negotiate a separate license. This is a private agreement
> between the parties and can, for example, contain terms that exclude
> other commercial actors from negotiating similar agreements.
>
> I think Wayne's point about MIT OCW was very interesting. From the
> outcome point of view, the MIT OCW non-commercial restriction has lead
> to much broader availability and use of the resources that could have
> been possible without NC. More restricted can sometimes be better if
> the objective is wide access.
>
> For the growth and maintenance of the resource, the situation can be
> different. The point is that if you are interested in the outcomes,
> you should focus on the empirical outcomes, for example, whether
> different licenses lead to enclosures of not. You might even ask
> whether enclosures are sometimes useful.
>
> I think Stallman's point about the difference between software and OER
> content is relevant. In software, you adapt and redevelop functional
> modules. You reuse implementations of ideas. That's why patents are
> important for SW. In content, the issue is more about expression. The
> author may be interested in preserving the integrity of the message.
> That's why some countries have clearly separated moral rights from
> (commercial) copyrights.
>
> Best
> ilkka
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oer-community mailing list
> Oer-community at athabascau.ca <mailto:Oer-community at athabascau.ca>
> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>
>
>
> --
> Rory McGreal
> UNESCO/COL Chair in OER
> Athabasca University
> rory at athabascau.ca <mailto:rory at athabascau.ca>
> Toll Free:1-855-807-0756
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oer-community mailing list
> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
--
Rory McGreal
UNESCO/COL Chair in OER
Athabasca University
rory at athabascau.ca
Toll Free:1-855-807-0756
--
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it
is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged
information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take
action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or
subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20121130/a22d65b9/attachment.html
More information about the Oer-community
mailing list