Do you agree with me that all publishers and authors should consider using Creative Commons instead of Copy Rights?

Yes, they should consider it.

Should they be required? Nah.

Creative Comments extends copyright. And no, I don’t agree, of course. Creative Commons should not only bring freedom to consumers, it should also provide freedom to authors. There’s a reason there are multiple CC licenses – in some cases, it’s just inappropriate.

I do think many more authors should consider CC, and it’d be very nice of them to license their work using a CC license.

It’s Creative Commons not Comments Mr. Vincentt.. =_=

And what if CC provides freedom to both consumer and author equally?
Of course this won’t be acceptable either. Why? Because the whole idea about the author’s freedom is that consumers must be slaves and the author is their master, right?

@archaeopteryx – aargh, I work too much with comments :P

But no, the primary person to decide over content is the person that produced it. That doesn’t make consumers slaves.

Also, consumers have the freedom of choosing CC-licensed content over others, yet most don’t, so apparently there’s not that much demand. OK, I take that back, I don’t have that much faith in the market.

Anyway, I know I’d stop publishing right away if all my stuff was in Public Domain by default.

@squirbel

It’s not that they should be required or forced to use anything. It’s the fact that if everyone puts under consideration that he’s not the smartest man on earth, and that knowledge is not for him to own, because every bit of knowledge found and learned by humans is actually owned by God, and God taught us this knowledge so that we share it with each other, everyone will be better off.

In economics, there are to main things, efficiency and equity. If we all focus on fully achieving equity among all people: First: We will kill poverty, Second: We will kill ignorance and illiteracy, And Third: All people will become even in wealth and even literacy.

Now, after achieving equity, sharing knowledge and money will be all we need in order to achieve efficiency.

But, look at what’s happening now, equity is dead and gone, a tiny number of extremely wealthy people compared to the vast majority of hungry nations (Affrica, India, Indonesia, Philippines… etc). People of America and other countries have reached the moon while ignorance and illiteracy are at extremely high levels in poor nations. All because the term “sharing” is not even mentioned in the dictionary.

What’s the solution now? Some people will tell me: “Hey, but what are the UNICEF, CARE, United Nations, and all those Philanthropists doing then?”

And I say: Yeah, have they ever achieved anything really significant during the past 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Obviously nothing worth mentioning. And guess what? They will never achieve anything at all, and they’ll never make any bit of a change as long as we don’t change they way we live, think, work, and interact.

Concisely, there’s a verse in the Qur’an that sums it up:

_ [(013.011) For each (such person) there are (angels) in succession, before and behind him: They guard him by command of Allah. Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (within their own souls). But when (once) Allah willeth a people’s punishment, there can be no turning it back, nor will they find, besides Him, any to protect.] _

I don’t agree that all publishers and authors should be forced to consider Creative Commons. As an artist myself (primarily photography), I have considered CC but have chosen to stick to all rights reserved for my photos. This is because I have seen too many incidents of creative commons material used wrongly (i.e. taken and used without attribution), and the author having little chances to remedy the situation because they used CC.

I find your last comment interesting; however I do not agree with it at all. As an atheist, your call to God has no effect on me, and I strongly disagree that all knowledge comes from God as I believe all knowledge comes from humans’ experiences and effort, supported by the scientific method. But beyond that lies this simple point: the world is not corrupt because of all rights reserved creations. The world is corrupt because there are corrupt people who are willing to profit off the suffering of others. Making all media have Creative Commons rights will do nothing to solve the tyranny in Zimbabwe, etc. Your “solution” has heavy undertones of socialism and communism, and while these ideologies are not outright wrong, you will find it very hard to convince any other people that it’s the right way to proceed.

@dynamicduo

I’m not a cummunist and I’m completely against communism, but I’m not a capitalist either and I’m completely against capitalism.

I am looking for a law, that gives everyone his rights live and learn, with treating the consumers as slaves to the inventor of this technology or author of that book, etc. (Whether unintentionally or not)

And by the way, your belief in God, is not at all my problem. In fact it’s your problem, considering the fact that the vast majority of the Earth’s population are actually believers of God, but with different religions and ideologies, which means that what I said actually applies on all those people.

@dynamicduo

Oops!!

CORRECTION: “And by the way, your disbelief in God, is not at all my problem.”

@dynamicduo – your reason for not using CC is just silly. Because people don’t respect your license doesn’t mean you should choose another license (well, not a license, really, but still). People could just as well take your pictures without attribution when you’ve marked it as “all rights reserved”.

Also, I bet you live in the US. Here in the Netherlands, a lot of people do not have knee-jerk reactions when socialism is suggested – oh, and have I mentioned we have about the best health care system and educational system in the world?

However, not having people own their own work is quite extreme. Forcing solidarity-laws on people doesn’t provoke solidarity. People will be discouraged to share their knowledge if they’re not allowed basic rights on their formulation of knowledge.

Plus, wouldn’t the world be a much nicer place if people chose to collaborate or allow collaboration on creative works?

Also, how is not believing in a god a problem when the majority of people does? It really shouldn’t be.

Oh, and I believe in a god, but that doesn’t mean I think my knowledge was brought to me by that god.

@Vincentt

I didn’t say that people should be forced to do anything.
Forcing people to change will never achieve anything as long as people are refusing to change themselves. It’s exactly the same as forcing your son to stop doing drugs, as it will never get him to actually stop drugs as long as he himself is refusing to stop, and might even make things worse.

>> Plus, wouldn’t the world be a much nicer place if people chose to collaborate or allow collaboration on creative works? <<

Actually this is what I’m trying to say, if everyone chooses to share his knowledge with everyone else, everyone (including himself) will be better off. But, by sharing I didn’t mean that he gives up his own rights, because this is not sharing. By sharing, I mean giving the community a fair chance to benefit from his work in a way guarantees everyone’s rights, including his.

>> Here in the Netherlands <<

You mentioned Netherlands, but Netherlands is not a poor country, so, where’s your point?

Ah, right, you said “should consider”. Then yes, I agree :P

Also, by just publishing your work and letting people view it, you’re already “sharing” it. You do have the right to ask money for people republishing it, or at least to forbid people from making money of republishing it without you getting a cut.

> You mentioned Netherlands, but Netherlands is not a poor country, so, where’s your point?

Why does it matter whether the Netherlands is a poor country?

@Vincentt, you’re wrong, where do I collect my bet winnings? I’m Canadian. I have lots of first hand experience when I mention socialism. FWIW I also find many Americans’ reactions to these terms to be exaggerated.

@Vincentt

Because in Netherlands you never see the real meaning of poverty, the one I’m talking about, the one that tells you how greedy a man can be, and how much of a lethal weapon greed a be. By poor people, I mean REALLY poor people, like those in Africa, India, Afghanistan.. etc.

Plus, sharing is not only about letting people view your work, by sharing I mean letting people adapt your work and build upon it. Something that prohibit sharing is also patents. Patents, inmho, are one of the worst solutions a man’s brain has came up with.
Okay, it prohibits other people from using your invention in order to increase investment and so on, but then it also makes this invention so expensive that it’s affordable only for the rich, poor people should consider killing themselves before even thinking of having it.
Some examples that explain what I really mean by that include: Medicine, Computers, Technology.. etc.

For example, have you ever heard of some who died of cancer because they did get the chance to have a good medical treatment? Why? Because they couldn’t afford it.

@dynamicduo – heh, too bad, you can pick up your bet winnings in the city of Utrecht tomorrow ;-)

@archaeopteryx – when did poverty come into play?

Anyway, in a capitalist system, patents can stimulate innovation and the gathering of more knowledge. Without patents, most companies would have no motivation to research new innovations.

Of course there are situations in which patents are undesirable, i.e. when they are used by patent trolls. That doesn’t disqualify the patent system as a whole, it merely indicates it needs reform (in most all countries AFAICT).

But I do think most people should at least consider it and could find in a whole lot more situations that a CC license would be a nice thing to do.

And yes, I’ve heard of people not being able to pay for medical treatment because they aren’t insured in countries where that’s not obligatory. That’s just one of the many disappointing sides of our world though.

@Vincentt

Great, so you agree with me that patents, besides their advantages, they’re also full miserable disadvantages. Which means that patents are not always the best solution, and if we depend on them 100%, then we are actually digging the grave of the entire humanity by our own fingers. What I’m calling for is something called “Equilibrium”, I think you know it very well. And by Equilibrium, I didn’t mean the Economical term, but I’m talking about the general term.

And yes, you said it (“in a capitalist system”). A capitalist system is a system where the entire world is left for the mercy of huge corporations, whom the only purpose of their existence to keep their owners living in ivory towers with non-stopping showers sprinkling billions of cash over their heads. As long as their bank accounts are stuffed with billion of cash, let everything lying behind the walls of their mansions go to hell.

Some of the biggest examples of people like those include Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer (Microsoft), Steve Jobs(Apple)... etc. (However, I didn’t mean people in the software industry specifically)

My cousin is a Computer Engineer, he lives in Silicon Valley, California. He once told me that he’s planning to develop a huge proprietary technology to earn him lots of cash. When I asked him “but why proprietary?”, he wrapped up everything I’ve just told you about capitalism in one of the most ridiculous sentences I’ve ever heard in the past 21 years of my age. He said: ”..because inventors need money to pay the bills.”.....

…....
Well, let’s see:

Where does he live again? Silicon Valley, California. One of the most luxurious places in the US. Where does he work? In a large corporation called Synopsys. How much money does he make every month? I’m not sure, but since his salary is probably no less than 25000 dollars, and his bookstore in Murphy Avenue, Sunnyvale earns him a good bunch of cash, then we can doubtlessly say he’s living the American dream in each and every aspect. Then why does he still sound so much like a poor inventor living in an old and rusty shack and dreaming about an invention that earns him enough money to feed his family? Ummm..maybe because, this is what capitalism is all about..?

And in the end, I’m not a capitalist, but I’m not a communist or a socialist either. I’m looking for a system that sums up all the advantages of those three systems and dumps their disadvantages. This system, is not impossible, trust me. All we need to achieve it is to deal with the greedy monster of our lust for money and fortune, and focus on building a world where everyone gets his fair share of peace, knowledge, food, clothing, housing, medical treatment, and so forth.

Oh yeah, and.. sorry for the long reply.

Which means that patents are not always the best solution, and if we depend on them 100%, then we are actually digging the grave of the entire humanity by our own fingers

Yes to the first, no to the second. I mean, sure, most patent systems are far from infallible, but there’s far more pressing matters. Patents really aren’t going to be the downfall of humanity…

I agree that greed is unfortunate, but what’s also unfortunate is that that’s how humans work. It’s either that cousing making a proprietary system and making lots of money off it, or him making nothing at all. There’s not really an in-between route of him making an open system, if he doesn’t want to.

@Vincentt

Which is why I’m actually saying that no body can change his him unless he decides to change himself. I can’t force anyone to stop being selfish, unless he decides to put an end to his own selfishness.

@archaeopteryx, if you think living in Silicon Valley means living in luxury, come visit and look around.

@Jeruba

Is it as bad as where I live (Irbid/Jordan)?
I don’t think so. :)

Is is as bad as countries like Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Somalia or South Africa, where people suffer extreme poverty, hunger, fatal diseases, ignorance.. etc.? I don’t think so either.. :-)

@archaeopteryx, I haven’t seen those places, but I presume not. (Note acknowledgment of assumption and lack of direct observation or evidence.) However, I submit that there is a significant difference between “not as bad as…extreme poverty” and luxury. Most of us are somewhere in that very broad range, and much nearer the middle than the top or the bottom.

Being homeless, unemployed, and begging for food on the bottom tier in any society is misery even if one society has a higher bottom than another.

@Jeruba

True.
But don’t you think that the wide variety of those at the bottom are actually there as a result of the selfishness and greed of those at the top?