3 ms·
Creative Commons always felt broken to me. Is anyone able to explain why following is not flawed and not possible, that is: Content thief steals contents anony
by O__________O 4y ago
Creative Commons always felt broken to me. Is anyone able to explain why following is not flawed and not possible, that is:
Content thief steals contents anonymously, posts it as Creative Commons content anonymously using free hosting, archives the content on Way Back, and then uses content claiming it is Creative Commons if anyone asks?
Basically it is content laundering - and something that impossible for Creative Commons to address as is.
(If reasoning is not flawed, also interested in possible solution to the issue.)
- dleslie 4y agoYour scheme would apply for any sort of licensing, permissive or not, and is certainly not constrained to using creative commons. It's also flawed in the same, albeit weak, manner: the source it was stolen from predates the stolen copies, and so can show its true provenance. Of course, if it wasn't published or otherwise registered, no one would know.
- bityard 4y ago> Basically it is content laundering - and something that impossible for Creative Commons to address as is. CC is just a usage license that authors can apply to their works in order to share them freely with the world. It's strange to me that you might think it is the job of CC to police how people (mis)use it?
- alt227 4y agoThis is no different from stealing something physical in the real world, and then claiming its yours. Sure some people will believe you and be impressed, but as soon as you attract the attention of the original owner, they will use the law to prove it is not yours but theirs. This is applicable to anything that can be 'owned'. Licensing only dictates how something can be used lawfully, the law protects the license from being abused.