A CC violation is not everyone's business. If A infringes on B's CC copyright, and party C pokes A about it, A can tell C to bugger off. It's like filing a DMCA notice when you don't own the work. Licensing is an agreement between two entities, not the community.
________________________________ From: David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force 2009/9/7 Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourde<geo.p...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> The Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for >> whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third party to >> intervene in a contract between two people and only two people. > This kind of attitude seems to me to be a byproduct of the fact that, > despite being intended to help fix the flaws in the copyright system, > Creative Commons and other free licenses are "hacks" that are built on > top of copyright. The construction of CC licenses as contracts > between copyright owner and user is part of the hack, but not > necessarily ideal for promoting a robust creative commons (in the > lower case, general sense). Indeed. Geoffrey fails to appreciate that a CC violation really is everyone's business. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
