Comments on: Catch of the Day Dept. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/ General interest observations and true web-log. Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:32:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ME http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62671 ME Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:53:11 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62671 When you meet Larry Lessig, are you planning to make him duel you in the Octagon? ... Can I "ref" the match? ... I'll use the "Shanghai Kung Fu Rules" When you meet Larry Lessig, are you planning to make him duel you in the Octagon? … Can I “ref” the match? … I’ll use the “Shanghai Kung Fu Rules”

]]> By: Jim Dermitt http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62412 Jim Dermitt Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:38:43 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62412 1936, that was the year. Hey trollers, fishermen and used car salesmen out there. What an idea! A must see! A car driven into the water so that fish can swim in and be trapped. Chevrolet Leader News (Vol. 2, No. 3) (1936) http://ia300141.us.archive.org/2/items/Chevrole1936_3/Chevrole1936_3.thumbs/Chevrole1936_3_00070000.jpg http://www.archive.org/movies/thumbnails.php?identifier=Chevrole1936_3 Creative Commons license: Public Domain 1936, that was the year.
Hey trollers, fishermen and used car salesmen out there.
What an idea! A must see!
A car driven into the water so that fish can swim in and be trapped.
Chevrolet Leader News (Vol. 2, No. 3) (1936)
http://ia300141.us.archive.org/2/items/Chevrole1936_3/Chevrole1936_3.thumbs/Chevrole1936_3_00070000.jpg
http://www.archive.org/movies/thumbnails.php?identifier=Chevrole1936_3
Creative Commons license: Public Domain

]]> By: Jim Dermitt http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62407 Jim Dermitt Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:13:34 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62407 Here is my conclusion on the Creative Commons. Not that I spent a whole lot of time figuring it all out, it seems like everything else digital. It can't really hurt the quality of information and should help it move more seamlessly across domains. It seems like it is designed to eliminate barriers, which is a good thing. Copyrights are great for certain information and Creative Commons does not hurt copyrighting. I guess it doesn't reinvent the wheel, it just provides a little axle grease. There is no sense in throwing a monkey wrench into Creative Commons. It can only expand the area of information sharing. It isn't elitist and it won't solve all of our problems. I can't see it creating any new problems. The show must go on, as the saying goes. I'm sure Creative Commons will keep evolving and growing. It looks like users find value in it and it isn't costly or bad for your health. I have nothing against it. It can't replace copyrights and I don't see why anybody would want to do that. It's an agenda geared toward academic minded folks. Can you make money with Creative Commons? That's the bottom line here. Here is my conclusion on the Creative Commons.
Not that I spent a whole lot of time figuring it all out, it seems like everything else digital. It can’t really hurt the quality of information and should help it move more seamlessly across domains. It seems like it is designed to eliminate barriers, which is a good thing. Copyrights are great for certain information and Creative Commons does not hurt copyrighting. I guess it doesn’t reinvent the wheel, it just provides a little axle grease. There is no sense in throwing a monkey wrench into Creative Commons. It can only expand the area of information sharing. It isn’t elitist and it won’t solve all of our problems. I can’t see it creating any new problems. The show must go on, as the saying goes. I’m sure Creative Commons will keep evolving and growing. It looks like users find value in it and it isn’t costly or bad for your health. I have nothing against it. It can’t replace copyrights and I don’t see why anybody would want to do that. It’s an agenda geared toward academic minded folks. Can you make money with Creative Commons? That’s the bottom line here.

]]> By: Jim Dermitt http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62395 Jim Dermitt Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:55:20 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62395 One funny copyright! Copyright © 2005 getinternetexplorer.com (and a lot of shit stolen from Microsoft) Maybe Creative Commons would of been a better way to go. Glanced from the Dvorak Files http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2092 One funny copyright!
Copyright © 2005 getinternetexplorer.com (and a lot of shit stolen from Microsoft) Maybe Creative Commons would of been a better way to go.

Glanced from the Dvorak Files http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2092

]]> By: Jim Dermitt http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62363 Jim Dermitt Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:45:27 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62363 I was looking at purchasing copyrighted premium news content for republication on a website. One article for one month was $150.00. I can understand why. They have to pay the writer, it goes through an editorial process and then there are the costs of publishing the content. I can link to the article, which is on a news website, if I want to share it on a website and it costs nothing. Here is a link on Privatizing the University--the New Tragedy of the Commons. Science, Vol 290, Issue 5497, 1701-1702 , 1 December 2000 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5497/1701#otherarticles Copyright © 2005 The American Association for the Advancement of Science Privatizing the University is worth reading. I'm not an authority on copyright. I can't see corporations using Creative Commons to share content. The Science Mag article uses copyright. It is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/ which is "ADVANCING SCIENCE, SERVING SOCIETY" They write, "Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and fulfills its mission to "advance science and serve society" through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more." They are not using Creative Commons, they are still using the copyright. I guess you can still advance science and serve society with the good old copyright in place. AAAS is non-profit, so you would think Creative Commons would be their cup of tea. They are not using Creative Commons. Why? Maybe copyright can't be improved or Creative Commons isn't needed. I was looking at purchasing copyrighted premium news content for republication on a website. One article for one month was $150.00. I can understand why. They have to pay the writer, it goes through an editorial process and then there are the costs of publishing the content. I can link to the article, which is on a news website, if I want to share it on a website and it costs nothing.

Here is a link on Privatizing the University–the New Tragedy of the Commons. Science, Vol 290, Issue 5497, 1701-1702 , 1 December 2000 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5497/1701#otherarticles Copyright © 2005 The American Association for the Advancement of Science

Privatizing the University is worth reading. I’m not an authority on copyright. I can’t see corporations using Creative Commons to share content. The Science Mag article uses copyright. It is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/ which is “ADVANCING SCIENCE, SERVING SOCIETY” They write, “Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and fulfills its mission to “advance science and serve society” through initiatives in science policy; international programs; science education; and more.” They are not using Creative Commons, they are still using the copyright. I guess you can still advance science and serve society with the good old copyright in place. AAAS is non-profit, so you would think Creative Commons would be their cup of tea. They are not using Creative Commons. Why? Maybe copyright can’t be improved or Creative Commons isn’t needed.

]]> By: mr. astute http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62327 mr. astute Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:58:28 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62327 JD, For the love of god, i implore you... debate Larry with one of those crappy Plantronics mics you have. JD,

For the love of god, i implore you… debate Larry with one of those crappy Plantronics mics you have.

]]> By: Jerry http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62240 Jerry Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:53:35 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62240 Johnny D., I always enjoy your perspective on tech issues & would love to watch you go head-to-head with Larry. It would be much better than playing "Grand Theft Auto" (coffee style)! A proverbial battle of the Tech Titans. Regards, Jerry Johnny D.,

I always enjoy your perspective on tech issues & would love to watch you go head-to-head with Larry. It would be much better than playing “Grand Theft Auto” (coffee style)!

A proverbial battle of the Tech Titans.

Regards,
Jerry

]]> By: James Hill http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62223 James Hill Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:23:26 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62223 Yes, John. Please do something to extend the fifteen minutes this lot is tied to. Of course, the entire debate will be over once someone asks "So how do you make money off of this?" Yes, John. Please do something to extend the fifteen minutes this lot is tied to.

Of course, the entire debate will be over once someone asks “So how do you make money off of this?”

]]> By: Anthony http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62222 Anthony Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:15:24 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62222 How in the world were you amused by that? It's nothing but biased praise. It pretty much says you are too quick to judge, but despite this flaw he would never argue with you. It's shallow at best. How in the world were you amused by that?

It’s nothing but biased praise. It pretty much says you are too quick to judge, but despite this flaw he would never argue with you.

It’s shallow at best.

]]> By: Boris http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62221 Boris Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:51:25 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62221 If your ass does get handed to you, please be sure to post pictures of it. If your ass does get handed to you, please be sure to post pictures of it.

]]> By: Ima Fish http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2005/07/29/catch-of-the-day-dept/comment-page-1/#comment-62219 Ima Fish Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:22:29 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2432#comment-62219 John, there are only two possibilities concerning the Creative Commons movement. Either it's being funded by the content industry, e.g., the RIAA, Disney, etc, or it's being run by a bunch of ignorant idiots. Let me explain. Who would most benefit if the Creative Commons movement succeeded? Would the consumer? Nope, because the vast majority of content he or she would want to copy would still be locked up by the current content industry, e.g., the RIAA, Disney, etc. They are NEVER going to use the Creative Commons license. EVER. Thus the entity that would benefit most would be the content industry. Essentially, a two tiered system of copyright would develop. There would be commercially viable content protected by normal copyright and DRM and the second tier would be a random assortment of music, web content, etc that would essentially be in a pseudo-public domain. And this is how the content industry would use it to their advantage. The next time copyrights were about to expire, the content industry would go to Congress and point to the success of the Creative Commons movement as an example of a huge public domain from which the public could be served. Thus, there would be no need for a real public domain of commercially viable works as the Creative Commons pseudo-public domain would serve that purpose. I simply do not see how the Creative Commons approach solves our current problem of perpetual copyrights. If you can, as Lessig that question. How does his movement solve the real problems of copyright?! Like I said, if he truly believes that one day Disney will start using the Creative Commons license he's an ignorant idiot. And if he doesn't, he's only helping to give the content industry the perpetual copyrights it so desperately wants. John, there are only two possibilities concerning the Creative Commons movement. Either it’s being funded by the content industry, e.g., the RIAA, Disney, etc, or it’s being run by a bunch of ignorant idiots. Let me explain.

Who would most benefit if the Creative Commons movement succeeded? Would the consumer? Nope, because the vast majority of content he or she would want to copy would still be locked up by the current content industry, e.g., the RIAA, Disney, etc. They are NEVER going to use the Creative Commons license. EVER.

Thus the entity that would benefit most would be the content industry. Essentially, a two tiered system of copyright would develop. There would be commercially viable content protected by normal copyright and DRM and the second tier would be a random assortment of music, web content, etc that would essentially be in a pseudo-public domain.

And this is how the content industry would use it to their advantage. The next time copyrights were about to expire, the content industry would go to Congress and point to the success of the Creative Commons movement as an example of a huge public domain from which the public could be served. Thus, there would be no need for a real public domain of commercially viable works as the Creative Commons pseudo-public domain would serve that purpose.

I simply do not see how the Creative Commons approach solves our current problem of perpetual copyrights. If you can, as Lessig that question. How does his movement solve the real problems of copyright?!

Like I said, if he truly believes that one day Disney will start using the Creative Commons license he’s an ignorant idiot. And if he doesn’t, he’s only helping to give the content industry the perpetual copyrights it so desperately wants.

]]>