3 ms·

>Public Domain isn't a license. It's a problematic legal concept. ... Fair. I'll keep that in mind and try to find details for the future :) >[Under public do

by Groxx 3y ago

>Public Domain isn't a license. It's a problematic legal concept. ... Fair. I'll keep that in mind and try to find details for the future :) >[Under public domain] you can't claim to control what other people do with it Which is exactly what CC without actual legal threats achieves, yes. Which is why I say people do care, so making it toothless seems to defeat the point. As far as I'm aware, the rest of that (mostly ownership) is covered by copyright, which is applied by default if you say nothing. So: saying nothing and distributing it however you like already achieves more than CC-without-teeth because you can already sue people for using it or claiming it as theirs, and just choose not to. Which is why this whole change feels self-defeating to me.

pdonis 3y ago
> copyright, which is applied by default if you say nothing But does not allow reuse. So it's irrelevant to a discussion of what to do if you do want to allow reuse. > you can already sue people for using it or claiming it as theirs, and just choose not to But that puts anyone who wants to reuse your content in good faith at the mercy of your whim about whether or not to sue them. That is not a good basis for facilitating reuse. > this whole change feels self-defeating to me Meaning, fixing the attribution clauses in CC so that people have a reasonable time to cure violations before the $150K lawsuit threat? I don't see how that makes CC licenses any more or less "toothless" than they were before. It increases the difficulty of copyleft trolling, which was what it was intended to do. Yes, it means a 30 day delay after you give notice before you can sue someone for violating your license--but anyone who fixes the violation within 30 days of you giving them notice is not someone you want to sue anyway, because they're a good faith user. If we're talking about individuals or small businesses, what makes any license toothless in our current legal environment is the cost of a lawsuit. If you're an individual or small business and large corporation X reuses your content without meeting the terms of your license, whether it's the original CC or the current one, and refuses to fix the violation (presumably because it would be bad for their business), you're basically SOL anyway: you will run out of money to keep a lawsuit going long before corporation X runs out of legal devices to delay or obstruct you. No amount of rejiggering of a license is going to change that. Nor, for that matter, will not giving any license and relying on copyright law: you're still in the same position.

by Groxx 3y ago

pdonis 3y ago

> copyright, which is applied by default if you say nothing But does not allow reuse. So it's irrelevant to a discussion of what to do if you do want to allow reuse. > you can already sue people for using it or claiming it as theirs, and just choose not to But that puts anyone who wants to reuse your content in good faith at the mercy of your whim about whether or not to sue them. That is not a good basis for facilitating reuse. > this whole change feels self-defeating to me Meaning, fixing the attribution clauses in CC so that people have a reasonable time to cure violations before the $150K lawsuit threat? I don't see how that makes CC licenses any more or less "toothless" than they were before. It increases the difficulty of copyleft trolling, which was what it was intended to do. Yes, it means a 30 day delay after you give notice before you can sue someone for violating your license--but anyone who fixes the violation within 30 days of you giving them notice is not someone you want to sue anyway, because they're a good faith user. If we're talking about individuals or small businesses, what makes any license toothless in our current legal environment is the cost of a lawsuit. If you're an individual or small business and large corporation X reuses your content without meeting the terms of your license, whether it's the original CC or the current one, and refuses to fix the violation (presumably because it would be bad for their business), you're basically SOL anyway: you will run out of money to keep a lawsuit going long before corporation X runs out of legal devices to delay or obstruct you. No amount of rejiggering of a license is going to change that. Nor, for that matter, will not giving any license and relying on copyright law: you're still in the same position.