3 ms·

That remix culture is definitely what it turned into and possibly what it was intended for and tons of that is a great success... but then why have violation te

by Groxx 3y ago

That remix culture is definitely what it turned into and possibly what it was intended for and tons of that is a great success... but then why have violation terms at all? Seems like that "remix, please attribute" is just signaling intent, and then there's no need for a license dictating how violations are handled. It'd just be public domain with an unofficial request tacked on. --- I should probably clarify that I think a lot of these are coming from people who want to do more of their art, and that requires money, and many of them have been tricked into exposure rather than payment and that leads to them not doing more art because they're too busy with other stuff that does pay so they can live. It's a time bomb that isn't generally recognized until it explodes, and it almost always does, and then they care deeply and go looking for legal teeth. Exposure can be great. It's overwhelmingly exploited by companies that are capable of paying but choose not to. Changing that is why licenses have terms like this, otherwise what's the point of the license? Make it Public Domain.

ghaff 3y ago
>tricked into exposure rather than payment Fully agree. In a prior stint as an IT industry analyst, we eventually started a non-paywall blog and (rarely) did free appearances at industry conferences. But people tried to get us to do free stuff all the time for the "exposure." Especially starting out it can be really tempting. But you have to really keep it in check if you're running a business. >Seems like that "remix, please attribute" is just signaling intent, and then there's no need for a license dictating how violations are handled. Viewed from the distance of 20ish years the CC licenses (other than CC0) look way too complicated. And it's not like CC works are routinely credited, even if imperfectly, anyway. It's not even clear to me that the MIT license couldn't just have been used (or extended) for non-code use.

by Groxx 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago

>tricked into exposure rather than payment Fully agree. In a prior stint as an IT industry analyst, we eventually started a non-paywall blog and (rarely) did free appearances at industry conferences. But people tried to get us to do free stuff all the time for the "exposure." Especially starting out it can be really tempting. But you have to really keep it in check if you're running a business. >Seems like that "remix, please attribute" is just signaling intent, and then there's no need for a license dictating how violations are handled. Viewed from the distance of 20ish years the CC licenses (other than CC0) look way too complicated. And it's not like CC works are routinely credited, even if imperfectly, anyway. It's not even clear to me that the MIT license couldn't just have been used (or extended) for non-code use.