I have a different problem to Heather with the default to CC-BY. I'm not concerned about these claims about mis-representation. The point of the BY in CC-BY is that attribution is given to the original creator of a piece, but also that it is made clear what has been changed (the easy way is to provide a clear link to the original). CC-BY does not therefore mean that I can add the word NOT into a sentence and then attribute that sentence to the original author of the exact opposite. If the resulting mis-attribution is egregious enough it could even give rise to a libel claim.
My problem with CC-BY is that it's too unrestricted. We should be looking at CC-BY-SA (Share-alike, or the copyleft principle). I have no problem with someone taking work and making use of it commercially, so long as they don't prevent others downstream from them also making commercial use. Richard Stallman, the originator of the copyleft principle for free software which is the basis of the concept of share-alike for creative commons, has of course explained this in great detail: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html This is the answer to Heather's problem about enclosure of the commons, not NC which as various people have commented about here is very unclear what it actually means. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
