Creative Commons is not limited internet-based content. It can be applied to music, documents, books, letters, art, anything…

Note: CANADIANS do not NEED to register with 'Creative Commons'. Your 'copyright' is ALREADY protected under Canadian Law. This is only an 'adjunct' "registration" BUSINESS that is DESIGNED primarily for IT users.

Joichi Ito is the CEO of Creative Commons, and founder and CEO of Neoteny, a venture capital firm focused on personal communications and enabling technologies. He has created numerous Internet companies including PSINet Japan, Digital Garage and Infoseek Japan. In 1997 Time ranked him as a member of the CyberElite. In 2000 he was ranked among the "50 Stars of Asia" by Business Week and commended by the Japanese Ministry of Posts andTele-communications for supporting the advancement of IT.

Read the 'fine print' taken from the creativecommons.org website /Privacy Policy …

Reorganization or Spin-Offs [ie. what happens when the business folds, sells off, or dissolves…]

Creative Commons may transfer some or all of your personal and/or non personal browsing information to a third party as a result of a reorganization, spin-off or similar transaction. Upon such transfer, the ACQUIRER's privacy policy WILL APPLY. In such event, Creative Commons will use reasonable efforts to notify you and to ensure that at the time of the transaction the acquirer's privacy policy complies with the Principles.

Special Note to International Users

The Websites are hosted in the United States. If you are accessing the Websites from the European Union, Asia, or any other region with laws or regulations governing personal data collection, use and disclosure that differ from United States laws, please note that you are transferring your personal data to the United States which does not have the same data protection laws as the EU and other regions. By providing your personal data you consent to:

* the use of your personal data for the uses identified above in accordance with the Privacy Policy; and
* the transfer of your personal data to the United States as indicated above.

And finally, "Your continued use of the Websites constitutes YOUR AGREEMENT to this Privacy Policy and any updates."

Bah. This is just a 'business'.

By 'registering' with this 'non-profit' business (no tax advantage to Canadians by the way), you're just giving them 'sanction' to OPEN SOURCE your data, (if you so CHOOSE), with a 'tag' BACK to 'creative commons' …

Hey, be sure to buy their t-shirt …

Nice FUD- you can use the Creative Commons license without having to register with the site- it's mainly a legally recognized method for an artist to augment their pre-existing copyright (the automatic one you get when you create something) to release certain rights- mainly private copying.
So you don't have to buy the t-shirt in order to use the license- if you want to get concerned about what you're signing away, have a look at SOCANs membership contract!

Excuse my ignorance, but WHO gives it a 'legal' Right?

What's more, if you don't 'register' with the site, and just 'use' their 'idea' of a 'Creative Commons' I'd say you're leaving your Self WIDE OPEN.

Just because YOU decide to cut & paste their logo on your stuff, and/or YOU decide you'll 'cover' your stuff with a 'creative commons' "license" doesn't mean it's got two legs to stand on, ESPECIALLY if you've already signed genuine 'licenses' with 'distributors' with 'third party' clauses who don't adhere or respect the Creative Commons 'mantra'.

More then anything, it seems a 'courtesy' designation that you HOPE others will 'respect'.

I honestly don't think it will hold up in a 'court of law', but please do correct me if I'm wrong.

It would certainly be the first instance I've heard of where a 'private' non-for-profit organization has managed to create national and legally-binding 'legalese' within the framework of a business entity …-? -

AND, if as you say, you don't need to regsiter with the site, well then, again, WHERE and HOW is it 'legally' relevant-?

Go read what the Creative Commons really is, because you obviously have no idea.
As the creator of the work, I still retain copyright as applicable under the Berne Convention. All I am doing with the Creative Common license is releasing some of those rights to the general public. It's just a way to tell people that I allow certain uses of my work while still retaining other restrictions (I tend to use Attribute-Non-Commercial) using the specific wording that has been developed to hold up as a legal contract- so yes, I copy and paste, just like any other code- law is code, it's just executed in a court room rather than on a computer. It's as enforceable as any EULA or even the business contracts you can get as kits- it's all in the wording.
Your blanket distrust of NGO's is interesting.
What is your take on the GPL then, or any of the other Open Source licenses?

I have considered the Creative Commons' licenses relative to what I do, and I don't find them applicable. (fyi, I don't write 'code', nor am I a software developer …) Rather, I get paid real money for producing unique 'objects' that someone else wants. They buy my work outright. (I have done several 'licensing' deals in the past but it's never been satisfactory, from my p.o.v.)
By the way, the Berne Convention means squat. No-one pays any attention to it, not the WIPO nor any nation states who are supposedly 'signatories' to the Convention.

My skepticism towards the legal entities of 'business' is healthy. I don't care if they're NGO, Not-For-Profit, a Registered Charity, Venture Capiltalists and/or wing-nut Hedge Funds.

At the end of the day, it's still a bunch of people - usually under the leadership of ONE charismatic individual - who are trying to move money from your pocket to their pocket - using some kind of 'idea' and/or product. That's what I look at, and that's what I consider, whenever I get 'pitched' …

Reducing cultural dialog to salable widget? I'm not interested.
(fyi, I make my living off of a number of things, all of them creative in some way- web development is the most technical, but I'm picky about the projects I'll pick up, I used to do more visual art, but these days I'm moving more into audio and performance)
The IP widget mentality has become the primary tool in implementing widespread artificial scarcity- control the supply, create the demand.

I'm interested in other approaches, and I don't want invasive laws impeding them from happening- that's what this debate is about to me- ensuring a natural abundance (in this case the ability to make a digital copy) isn't undermined by an artificial scarcity (trying to filter/control the flow of information).

All well and good …
But the net ain't 'free'.

That's the greatest 'illusion' of all.

Well, according to neo-capitalist orthodoxy, nothing is free- so I'll keep breathing while you keep paying, I'm outta here…

Why does 'Realism' unnerve 'Idealists'? It shouldn't. The world would be a BETTER place if the two 'spheres' meshed & MODIFIED the respective strength & weaknesses of EACH OTHER …

Anyway, just remember that when the 'lights do go out' ie. your power source STOPS, & your computer (that you presumably BOUGHT) stops WORKING & suddenly all that FREE 'stuff' you so blithely 'consumed' whenever you wanted it is no longer available - just remember that yes, you ARE breathing & you CAN survive VERY WELL without being 'plugged in' …

That was kinda my whole point.
Overall.

Good luck to you.

Actually I've lived in the bush without electricity, running water or phone quite frequently throughout my entire life, and I'm perfectly happy to do so again, and probably will, that's my "realism".
I do live by my ideals, and honestly, I love my life, I'm engaged on levels I know most people don't experience, and I want to help others who are looking for it to find it as well.
Right now I'm actively engaged in developing localized culture so that we (my local community) are more autonomous and not dependent on centralized media.
At the same time, I'm not an isolationist, so while I have access to it, I'm using the global media network to gather tools and resources, as well as create networks with other communities that are pursuing the same/similar things, to build sustainability that's not dependent on the current economic paradigm, which I don't see as sustainable.
I'm concerned about new laws because I can see ways in which they can impede me from doing what I'm doing.

And, btw, you can set up free networks, a lot of the early ISPs were based on those principles.

As for my computer, it's a refurbished model (recycled and inexpensive- not perfect, but moving in the right direction) I purchased it with money that I made developing a website for a community arts organization- they had the budget and the mandate, I asked myself "if money wasn't involved would you do it anyway?", the answer was yes, so they got a site and I got a computer.

I should clarify something else, I'm not interested in downloading stuff that people don't want to share, I'm seeking stuff that people do want to share (as an example, check out www.jamendo.com ), and making connection with those artists in a more direct way than just buying a t-shirt- that's why I brought up the Creative Commons, it's an indication to me that the artist is willing to freely share there work.
So if you don't want to share your writing, I'm not going to read it.

And you don't unnerve me, your not saying anything I haven't heard before- it's just exhausting to explain the context in order to get across where I'm coming from in the face of all the inherent assumptions in what you are expressing.

So far you've been respectful, so I'm trying to make the effort to honour that by trying to put across my point of view.

I don't think we are 'far apart' as you may currently think.

Milliions of dollars have been invested in the net, and millions have been reaped. That's the business side of it. Millions of people now have 'free access' to many things that they never did before. That's the personal side of it. That this 'technology' is now 'shaping' the broad sea of humanity cannot be disputed or denied.

The point is to maximize this 'tool' as a means for the betterment of all, not just a select few. Currently, as far as I can tell, (and what has been too often expressed within this forum), it seems to engender personal greed and promote laziness. (ie. " I want what I want NOW".)

Invested businesses WANT you to use the net 24/7. To that end, their 'marketing' is working. One self-professed hacker said he'd 'panic' without his 'plug in'.

To my mind, that kind of addiction is 'warping' the imaginations and sensibilities of those who are INCREASINGLY addicted. Too many now 'RELY on it and that, I think, is problematic overall for the species. Why? Cuz, at base, this whole 'thing' is nothing more then a mechanical TOOL, it is not sentient, it is not 'alive', it does not 'breathe'. There is no MIND as such 'driving it'. No, 'search engines' deliver the goods, and they are FUNDAMENTALLY 'for-profit' businesses.

And that is, at core, where the problem may lie. Because if 'the sources' were accurately 'IDENTIFIABLE' the growing narcissistic social behaviour that is developing on-line would have to ACKNOWLEDGE 'identity'. Meaning, in 'real life' one understands the BOUNDARIES and LIMITS when engaging with another human being. You don't steal from someone, you don't hurt them, you don't abuse or use them, no, you treat them as you yourself want and hope to be treated, with consideration, empathy and respect.( Unless, of course, you're a pig to begin with.) Currently that doesn't 'happen' much on the net. There is no REAL connection, there is no REAL CONSEQUENCE to any interaction within cyberspace.

Instead, most now 'create' subjective panopticons that 'spy' and 'take' what they want from "the world". Personally, I think this GENERAL USE is kind of 'unhealthy'. It is more of a social dis-ease, then a 'cure'.

That you choose to use the 'available' resources for your own ends as stated is not really any different then the rest. My point is my CONCERN about the seeming 'ALLURE' of the 'FREE'. Nothing is free here. The MECHANICS that support this 'allure' are being bought & sold & traded as we speak/write. Business is trying VERY HARD to make the 'allure' even more 'enticing'. They WANT 'us' 'addicted', they MAKE it 'easy', they MAKE it 'free'… ie. Join MySpace or Facebook or any other 'social network' and spill your guts. What's not readily understood, disclosed or promoted is that NewsCorp OWNS MySpace & Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, is now a billionaire. Your supposed indulgent FREEDOM of EXPRESSION is making these select few businesses VERY RICH.

However, that I am 'sharing' these thoughts with you now is my CHOICE, it is not YOUR Right. And that is a distinction that I believe you must try to understand from my p.o.v. As a potential 'content provider' aka 'artist/author' I am not interested in being an 'internet slave' who WORKS for FREE ultimately propping up the mechanics of the BUSINESS SIDE of this 'digital economy'.

Finally, I must remark on this 'under the wire' re-design by the forum administrators …wow, finally, someone from THE BUSINESS SIDE was 'watching & listening'. Well done. Way to keep us talking, way to keep us ENGAGED, way to keep us DOIN' it for FREE!!!)

- - - See my point?

p.s, Laurent Kratz, CEO of Jamendo.com is a serial entrepeneur with an IT background, a PhD in computer science with a business degree in 'management'. He is a prime EXAMPLE of someone using the so-called 'FREE model' to 'lure' in 'participants' …

MEANWHILE, this litle 'start up' PRIVATE business venture of his has the hefty financial backing of Mangrove Capital Partners to the tune of several million. Read that sentence again. Their mandate is to invest in 'young companies' who have the potential for 'world class' domination… See CrunchBase.com for details.

Kratz has also got several other 'start ups' in the works, see his 'LinkedIn' profile. So, you may 'think' he's being 'home grown & authentic' and even 'altruistic' by 'giving the people what they want' thru Creative Commons etc, but, make no mistake, this guy is in it for THE MONEY.

Those who 'sign' and 'upload' FOR FREE - even with 'limited CC licenses' - are sure making his life a whole lot easier. Likewise, those who 'download', (who do or don't pay a pittance) are just beefing up the circular 'sharing' nature of his 'FREE for All' BUSINESS model.

To my mind, the whole thing kinda reeks of duplicity … he is feeding off other's trembling WANTS & NEEDS. And worse, the BIG BUCKS are backing him.

p.p.s. Laurent's french blog is also kinda curious. He sure seems to spend a LOT of time as a 'music entrepeneur' TRAVELLING to 'chouette' high-end fancy hotels with nice 'spas' & swimming pools …

I have seen your point from the beginning- I feel though, that you are fixated on the specific aspect of money, "the bottom line", as if that is the only means of exchange and the defining factor of human existence, I'm trying to get across that it's not the only currency in human exchange, and in point of fact detracts from some of the most important aspects of human dialog- it's the distraction.
You keep framing things in the producer/consumer paradigm, that's a very specific view point, it has it's place and value, but it is not the only way to view these things- I approach the Internet on a peer to peer basis, for me it's about communication.
If you don't want to support Google or Facebook, don't use them- for searching, Google is not the only engine or indexer, find an alternative, there's lots of them out there if you look, for social networking, Facebook/Myspace are not exclusive either, heck if you want you can set up your own using a plethora of Open Source tools to do so.

Social intimacy is my currency- I haven't been a wage slave for over 20 years, money has it's place, but it does not dictate my life- and that's what I seek to develop online. The free stuff I share is mainly hosted on my own webserver, no one's making massive cash off of my stuff. One service I do use is Jamendo, and they share their ad revenue with the content creators, they also offer a commercial licensing service, kinda handy.

If you are at all interested, look into folks like JCR Licklider, Doug Engelbart, and even Tim Berners-Lee who's work has been essential for the development of the modern Internet, and their motives were not about making piles of cash, but rather the betterment of us humans in general- whether they have been successful can still be debated, but I'm more interested in acknowledging and supporting those types of motivations than bemoaning who's getting more than me.

Added an earlier p.s. re: Laurent Kratz, CEO of Jamendo, below.

Plus, you might be interested in the following P2P story. 'Free music' using Creative Commons was the model used there too. They were set up on very similiar lines as Jamendo and even got EMI to sign over their inventory. They flamed out though cuz they couldn't generate sufficient revenue to satisfy their 'silent' hedge fund backers …

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10303994-93.html

Berners-Lee and the rest of W3C headquartered at MIT are now a wide-ranging consortium in collusion with early dissidents, the Working Group. All have tie-ins & the backing of big money. That's a well-known fact.

Personally, my first language is 'English', not 'html'. I'm not interested in becoming an internet lacky. For me, it's only a periodic TOOL, not an all-consuming 'Way of Life' as it is for most co-dependent 'software developers' and/or interdependent 'creative coders'.

Thus, from my p.o.v., it seems sensible, intellectually & emotionally, to resist the incessant all-pervasive & increasing 'bullying' pressure to 'Comply-or-Die!'

The net is really not the Be-All End-All. Sadly, those who are FULLY IMMERSED - who are unwilling, and increasingly unable, to 'disconnect' from their gadgets - just don't seem to get that … … anymore.

Yeah yeah we get it already… The internet and technology are evil and everyone who likes them are [insert various insults here] and everyone should all give up electricity and go live in caves yadayada…

Thank you for your scintillating and thought-provoking belch.

Clearly, you're a blinkered narrow-minded permanently plugged-in 'Internet Believer' …

Are you a card-carrying FOLLOWER of the 'churchofgoogle.org' too per chance?

If you are actually trying to change anyone's mind with your arguments, I would suggest laying off the insults. You catch more flies with honey you know ;)

-????? … good grief … .

YOU cavalierly 'drop in' & 'fling' insults at me in passing - 'yadayadayada' - and I'm just supposed to lie down & take it- ???

What astounds me is the hyperbolic 'double-speak' from you and your kind. It's such utter B.S.

I do have something to say. I'm not talking about that one post in response to my facetious comment, my facetious comment was spurred by your constant insults. Facts and intelligence are hardly neccessary in this case. It's basic common sense. Your constant insults are pointless and annoying. You want me to dig up some study that shows people get annoyed when you insult them constantly?

WHY are YOU 'suddenly' active on this thread?

You parachute in 'cold' and insult me - clearly without READING the discussion to this point. What PURPOSE did your mockery put-down serve? It wasn't 'tactical' to the debate, it wasn't very bright. It was just 'bullying' and 'superior' posturing. And as such, POINTLESS.

I am quite sure that the 'other' perfectly intelligent individuals who have been THINKING and FEELING their way forward on this thread don't NEED you to bulldoze in and 'protect them'.

You insult THEM by doing so.

I also find it very curious that this site administration has had to make a public notice of the HUNDREDS of letters that have originated from ONE source that are 'anti-copyright'.

A second letter earmarked 'SEND' has been recently 'posted' on Twitter that has much of the same b.s. in it. This 'anonymous' letter PRETENDS to be an academic from MacMaster University in Hamilton. That this cowardly originator from NYC is actively circulating a bogus 'Canadian' submission kinda undercuts any SENSIBLE discussion or debate.

This foreign 'attack' is a kind of 'terrorism'; intended to not only de-rail the 'worth' of this nationally specific forum, but also attempts to undercut the voices of those who do actively SUPPORT greater Copyright protection for Original Works by CANADIANS.

My hope is that the administrators, and many who are now reading this site, understand this 'minor skirmish' as part of the 'greater on-going battle', and that the TACTICS employed by these - (ie. 'the FREELOADING 'I-want-everything-now' rootless "global" pirates) who hope to GAIN the most by 'hi-jacking' Original Works - will CONTINUE to act out thru this forum as the spoilt self-centred 'all consuming' brats that they are, full of equal parts blarney & bluster.
Go ahead - VOTE.
Agree or Disagree.
Then, enough of this nonsense.
Let 'The Debate' continue …

"Let 'The Debate' continue ."
Agreed, but since you asked and appear to have misunderstood:

The reason I "parachuted" in to your apparently private discussion here on this public forum is because for some reason you keep insulting me and my profession in your comments, and it annoys me.

Also, for the record, I wasn't insulting you, I was insulting your argument. I may be a 'sexist' 'DOMINANT' 'co-dependant' software developer, but I find your argument about the html standard being a conspiracy, as well as your claims that people have lost touch with reality because of the dependance on the internet and technology to be a little silly. Dependance on technology is hardly a new thing for humanity, and I'm sure there are some technologies that even you are relatively 'dependant' upon.

Technology extolls a price, it is not benign.

Automobiles revolutionized our civilization. In much the same way, this 'form' of communication is revolutionizing ours. Well, we know what cars have done to the planet, but little to any thought seems to be given to the impact of this 'new' technology. I find nothing 'silly' in a healthy skepticism that considers its broader implications & impact.

In like turn, there is shockingly little research that attempts to analyize the impact that 'television' is haviing - and has had - on our species. Rather, we've adapted to that 'mode' of communication - & assimiliation - with nary a blip. It is now inconceivable to many that 't.v'. not be a central 'global' portal within our homes.

Within a small realm of the affluent of the world, the 'newer' technologies - like wifi internet, cellphones, etc- are increasingly playing a greater role in the continued 'assimilation' and DOMINATION of others.

What is worth noting is that 5/6ths of the world's population do not have the ACTUAL POWER let alone the 'disposable income' to fidget with gadgets. A construction worker in Abu Dhabi, as an example, makes 40 cents A DAY.

If the AIM of this 'new' technology is to 'increase' the benefits to ALL humanity, then surely the FIRST place to START would be an affordable pencil that allows the development of literacy, the basic building block of ALL education, instead of an array of technological bits & bites that primarily support the profit hungry ambitions of global conglomerates who suck off the 'media induced' ambitions of the middle class …

It is unlikely that these thoughts would much interest a sexist, DOMINANT, co-dependant software developer … but, at least, within this PUBLIC forum I am able, for a short time anyway, to voice my very real concerns & doubt about the so-called 'benefits' of these 'advanced' technologies that assiduously cultivate blinkered techno-addictions - like PlayStation, 'Second Life' & that sexist billion dollar money maker - internet porn.

"It is unlikely that these thoughts would much interest a […] software developer" I am not surprised that you think so since software developers seem to be wearing the black hats in your world.

I am hardly of the school that blames the beer when someone is drunk driving, but for the sake of argument, lets assume technology / internet is actually the source of this addiction / overindulgance you speak of instead of the people being the source. And I will give you that computers are probably not a great tool to use for educating the third and fourth world.

I certainly don't think the aim of new technology is to increase the benefits to all humanity. The aim of technology, is the aim of the inventor as far as I can tell.

Profit hungry corporations are everywhere and make their own support and the internet is certainly no exception, though I certainly wouldn't personally say that is it's "primary" purpose, I suppose that is a matter of opinion since I have only my own experience and no real evidence that would help sum up how often the internet is currently used for what purposes.

"instead of an array of technological bits & bites " This is just posturing. You could as easy say a book is a bunch of squiggly lines, it may be true but it's hardly representative.

Anyway, if we assume the internet and new technologies are just corruptors and it is "primarily" in support of bad corporations, I'll admit am still not quite following your argument. What makes you think the answers to these problem lie in Canada's copyright legislation? Are you hoping we can use copyright legislation to get rid of the internet or prevent people from using it? What sort of changes would you like to see in the legislation that you think would help? I hope you aren't implying that the changes the media lobby groups are pushing for also coincidentally going fix these problems for us?

You are of the 'logical school' that believes a gun is only dangerous if someone shoots it. (ie. beer is only dangerous if drunk by people, and by implication - the internet is only 'dangerous' if used by people …) ok, let's try to work with that 'logical concept'.

Surely even you can see that certain restrictions are absolutely necessary for the broader 'safety' of society if, hypothetically, beer & guns & the internet are available to all everywhere.

It's a given that as long as the 'market' IS there, inventors, manufacturers, dealers, and distributors will aggressively market their products with the hope of PROFITING from 'sales' to ANYONE. (If PROFIT wasn't the main objective, well, why else bother spending time/resouces & capital-?)

Yet, is it 'safe' that a child can own, let alone, use a handgun at 7 years of age? Is it 'safe' that teenagers have semi-automatics to 'show-off' to each other? Is it 'safe' that a man has a shotgun, but his wife does not? Or the converse? Is it 'safe' to allow a known criminal who is a menace to the community the Right to own and operate several 'hybrid' guns?

Sounds extreme, doesn't it? But this was your example using 'beer', meaning, you seem to subscribe to the BELIEF that 'technology' is benign.

I do not.

There must be 'rules' for, and of, 'use'.

This thread started with the proposition that 'Creative Commons' was a viable 'tool' for content 'control' offered to 'content providers' - regardless of their discipline, ie. software, music, writing and/or whatever.

My continued criticism is that this 'copyright framework' has been fundamentally devised by the technological side of the industry to facilitate continued 'interaction' with this particular technology, ie. the net.

It does not address, nor is it applicable to, other forms of 'creation', that exist OUTSIDE of the realm of 'web life'.

It's kind of like a gun manufacturer saying, ok, here's a 'license' to shoot, or a beer merchant saying, here's a 'card' that says you're old enough to drink responsibly, so drink. Of COURSE these industries's 'permissions' are 'accessible' and will benefit them & their 'users'.

But these 'permissions' do nothing whatsoever to the REST who don't DESIRE, NEED, or WANT these 'products'.

It's all so very insular, and worse, presumptuous.

Overall, there seems such a pervasive unhealthy sickness in it all. imho.

You are correct that I see basically everything without motive or the ability to act on it's own as 'benign', but I do understand that the other view is also widely accepted.

I don't know that it is presumptuous, as far as I can tell the reason the internet is the center of all the attention / new laws is because the government / other people and interests seem to think the old copyright laws already worked fine before the internet and the area that hasn't been properly addressed in existing law is the internet. It's not because people think other technologies or products are useless / obsolete or unworthy of attention, it's just because 'the internet' is where they think the holes in the legistlation are.

Unfortunately, basically all the suggestions for restrictions are engineered by corporations, so rather than the "you must be over 20 to smoke" type laws, we get the "you can't bring outside alcohol onto a golf course" type laws.

Perhaps you can tell us which cigarette manufacturing 'corporation' actively promoted the 'banning of cigarettes'.

As far as I know that was a 'law' instituted to protect children from a known unhealthy life-threatening addiction.

And yes, there were 'lobby groups' who acted to have those 'laws' put into place. Just like the 'citizen group' MADD actively lobbies against drunk drivers.

Likewise, a private organization - like a golf club or a 'software developers club' - that has paying or even non-paying members, is perfectly entitled to 'estalbish' rules that it's members collectively agree upon & endorse.

If someone wants to deliberately flaunt & 'break' those collectively agreed upon 'rules', like 'get drunk on the back 9' or 'play scrabble with their grandparents instead of building code' then that person will be 'banned' from the club. Seems perfectly fair to me. Doesn't that seem fair to you?

If someone wants to play 'truant' just to attract attention to themselves, that's their business. But when their behaviour affects MY LIFE and those I love & care for, rest assured I want 'protection' from those idiots.

Vis a vis 'copyright': I am a creator of original works that are currently not web-dependent. I do recognize that the web is presenting untold opportunities - as well as numerous unforeseen 'social' challenges …

I agree that current technological-based corporations - like 'Google', 'Amazon' and/or 'Jamendo' are the primary benefactors of both 'copyright protection' and 'patent' legalese that effective CONTROLS OTHER 'content providers' 'uploaded works', and that, in my opinion, ain't right..

In much the same way as 'lobbyists' formed to 'protect' minors from an unhealthy addiction and MADD organized to 'protect' victims of senseless drunk drivers, artists' organizations - (be they musicians and/or writers)- are CORRECT in their primary aim to ensure Copyright 'protection' for their members creative works on-line or elsewhere.

How 'distributors' on the net interpret and utilize current 'copyright' laws in Canada DOES need to be more thoroughly addressed. Why? Because 'distributor's' AIM here does not seem to be in tandem with the current needs or wishes of the original creators or their 'lobbying' organizations.

Search engines', as an example, want 'traffic', they want 'addicts', they want 'us' as 'committed consumers' and 'co-dependents', constantly USING THEIR SERVICES. As such, they could really care less about 'content'. Content is only a 'by-product' of their MAIN buisness … ENDLESS 24/7 TRAFFIC … and that is WHY Google et al are somewhat 'cavalier' about the Copy Rights of Creators. {Consider the timeline of The Google Book Settlement if you doubt this.}

Ironically, their 'fine print' is IRON CLAD & VERY PRECISE. Their 'Terms of Use' aka 'their Rules' have been naturally written in THEIR favour. Yet, here's an example of a 'club' that ANYONE is 'allowed' to JOIN but none have any VOICE in how it's run …

This 'multi-billion dollar buisness NEEDS our 'involvement' as 'users' - just like computer manufacturers NEED us to 'purchase' computers. They want us 'plugged in' & preferably 'on-line' FOREVER - that's it.

Whether we be 'creators' or 'consumers' is kinda immaterial to the whole thrust of this increasingly OVERBEARING 'digital economy' INDUSTRY … and that ain't right either.

I do not have an agenda against lobby groups in general, but attempting to compare MADD to CRIA / RIAA is like comparing a cute kitten to … well the representatives from big corporations that have been taking advantage of musicians for decades…

I will agree with you that we need to watch out for google and amazon. Corporations in capitalism are completly self serving by design. I am pleased, however, that they are at least not trying to directly manipulate our copyright legislation. Other big corporations are doing so, and I believe their only motive is their to get money to their shareholders. Thats what corporations do, which is fine, but knowning this, I don't want them writing our laws for us.

I am in full agreement that illegal downloading is unethical. I rely on copyright for my income. I believe creators need better representation in legislation, I just don't believe that is what the Bill C-61 style legislation that the lobbyists are pushing does. I look at the laws they want to pass and I think "these laws are not intended to help creators at all".

I do not trust the CRIA / RIAA et al's intentions, and in looking at the laws that they want, and especially the methods they are using in their "lobbying", I do not believe they are going to be a big benefit for artists and creators. I am not against cracking down on illegal downloading, but the "side effects" of the laws the corps are pushing for will just give more control to the big corporations and less to the actual creators and less to the consumers. I don't believe the CRIA / RIAA and those in their pocket deserve to be declare themselves crusaders for musicians rights.

As an example:
Legal protection of "digital locks" even when they are not used for copyright infringement I believe is one of the most dangerous laws they are pushing for. This would give the corporation who makes the digital lock veto power over all our fair dealing provisions. We would only get fair dealing provisions if the company makes an extra effort to allow it in their 'digital locks'. It gives the corporations legal protection over their format monopolies like iTunes. It allows them to put time bombs in your cd's, dvd's etc so that they disable whenever the company wants to stop allowing you to use them. It gives legal protection to anything the corporation feels like protecting with digital locks and claims that the corporations are going to use this control to look out for creators interests.

Where is the evidence that these laws are actually going to help the creators at all?

I don't see how these new laws will be any help to the issues you have raised regarding the internet either. The laws they are trying to push in aren't anti-internet, they are just pro-corporate control under the guise of helping creators.

Pirate Bay, Kazaa & Napster before that were all 'devoted' to P2P 'sharing' of musical works over the internet. Anyone could 'join', download and then burn to blank CD's. Those 'businesses' blew apart 'traditional' music distribution 'businesses' AT THE EXPENSE OF most musicians who WERE depending on the 'old models' to earn their income. So, naturally, there was and will continue to be a 'backlash' against that kind of 'copyright infringement'.

Personally, I don't see Apple's iTunes any differently. They too are a 'business'. They have even created the 'vehicle' to secure/lock down their distribution, ie. the ipod, and they've done that IN AGREEMENT with the very corporations who represent the musicians that you so despise …

Clearly, given the rate of techno-innovation, there will soon be ANOTHER 'business' distribution model that will replace/improve iTunes & the ipod. Rest assured that Apple (now with the backing of industry labels) will do EVERYTHING in IT'S power to delay/stall/impede/sabotage/abort/challenge & 'cry foul' any potential 'rival'.

And so churns the BUSINESS of the internet.
(Google doesn't care, btw, just so long as consumers continue 24/7 their on-line 'searching' thru their indexed aggregated data. They'll link you quick as wink to your preferred 'supplier'…)

The 'illusion' and the 'allure' remains the 'golden days' of FREE. As long as that possibilty exists, and as long as P2P of music continues unfettered, these 'freeloaders' will continue BY ANY MEANS to RIDE ON THE BACKS of the musicians as much as is possible before they are bucked off - again … ( 'Jamendo' is just another hybrid 'business' by the way. CEO Laurant Kratz is IN IT FOR THE MONEY. It is delusional to think otherwise … ).

Overall though, most consumers don't really CARE about these 'big league' battlegrounds. (No one 'mourns' the demise of the Sony Walkman, cassettes or even 8 track … )Consumers just want what they had before - the 'dream' of FREE MUSIC.

Listening to satellite radio apparently isn't enough, they want to be able to MAKE their own CD's and/or DOWNLOAD their 'OWN COPIES' to their ipod/whatevers with the FREE music of their choice… sigh.

"Gimme gimme gimme … wahhhhh"

Cumulatively though, this is such a very small sector of the whole internet phenomenon. As such it is restricted to a very small 'privileged' demographic of predominately male users between 15-30+/-. And, as such, the potential SCOPE for this ENTIRE discussion is being overwhelmed by this itty bitty VERY VOCAL sector.

MEANWHILE, issues of privacy vis a vis 'copy Right', and the larger issue of the increasing commercialization of private data LOOM …

There is a small sector that is just looking for free music (and videos) all right, but I believe there are also some very legitimate reasons to take a second look at these proposed laws.

This thread began as a discussion about the use/abuse of the Creative Commons 'licenses' as a potential adjunct and/or modifier of current Copyright Law in Canada.

Hopefully this discussion has proved useful to those interested in that aspect of the overall debate.

Proposed legislation that personally affects you might be better served dished out in another thread - of your own making.