I think it's a great time to show our support. That is, those of us who have money. I don't.
Harold J. Johnson
audioblogs.infoOn 10/6/05, Thomas G Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Maybe u knew... if not... whatcha think?
"The licenses give creators a simple way to mark their creativity with
the freedoms they want it to carry by default. The license is an
invitation to others to ask for permission for uses beyond those
given by default. A "Noncommercial" license does not mean the creator
would never take money for his or her creativity. It means simply,
"Ask if you want to make a commercial use. No need to ask if you want
to make just a noncommercial use."
We launched Creative Commons in December, 2002. Within a year, we
counted over 1,000,000 link-backs to our licenses. At a year and a
half, that number was over 1,800,000. At two, the number was just
about 5,000,000. At two and a half years (last June), the number was
just over 12,000,000. And today -- three months later -- Yahoo!
reports over 50,000,000 link-backs to our licenses. "Link-backs" are
not really a count of how many objects are licensed under Creative
Commons licenses - a single license could cover 100,000 songs in a
music database for example, or a single blog might have multiple
instances of the license. But the growth does measure something: The
uptake of Creative Commons licenses is growing fast, and indeed, far
faster than I ever dreamed."-- Forwarded message --From: Lawrence Lessig <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Oct 6, 2005 12:12 PMSubject: [cc-info] CC in Review: Lawrence Lessig on Supporting the CommonsTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]So today, Creative Commons launches its first fund raising campaign.
Until now, we've lived on very generous grants from some very wisefoundations. But the IRS doesn't allow nonprofits to live suchfavored lives for long. To maintain our nonprofit status, the IRSsays we must meet a "public support test" -- which means we must
demonstrate that our support comes from more than a few foundations.And thus, this campaign.This email is a pitch, asking for your support. But it is also thefirst in a series of emails I will write explaining what Creative
Commons is, and where we're going with it. This is something I shouldhave done long ago. There have been many thoughtful (even if some notso thoughtful) questions raised about who we are, and where we'regoing. I've wanted an excuse to answer them thoughtfully before. The
IRS has given me that excuse.You're on this list because you've signed up to receive informationabout Creative Commons or been a friend to CC in the past. If theseweekly emails from me (from now until Christmas, around 500 words in
length, except for this one which is a bit long) will be a bother,please unsubscribe at
http://creativecommons.org/about/newsletter#unsubscribe
.Alternatively, if you know others who might find these interesting,please recommend they sign up at
http://creativecommons.org/about/newsletter.
This first email won't have much news to current friends of CreativeCommons. You probably know all this. My aim in this initial missiveis to explain what Creative Commons is, and why we launched it. Therewill be some bragging about what we've accomplished so far. Don't
worry, these emails are from me, and not a press department. Therewill be plenty of self-criticism later on. For the moment, let'sfocus on the positive idea that got CC going.CC: The StoryCreative Commons was conceived in a conversation I had with Eric
Eldred. I was representing Eric in his case challenging the UnitedStates Congress' Copyright Term Extension Act. Eric was enthusiasticabout the case, but not optimistic about the results. Early on, heasked me whether there was a way that we could translate the energy
that was building around his case into something positive. Not anattack on copyright, but a way of using copyright to support, ineffect, the public domain.I readily agreed, not so much because I had a plan, but because,
naive lawyer that I was, I thought we'd win the case, and Eric wouldforget the dream. But nonetheless, long before the Supreme Courtdecided to hear Eldred's plea, a bunch of us had put together theplan to build the Creative Commons.
We stole the basic idea from the Free Software Foundation -- giveaway free copyright licenses. Because copyright is property, the lawrequires that you get permission before you "use" a copyrighted work,
unless that use is a "fair use." The particular kind of "use" thatrequires permission is any use within the reach of the exclusiverights that copyright grants. In the physical world, these "exclusive
rights" leave lots unregulated by copyright. For example, in the realworld, if you read a book, that's not a "fair use" of the book. It isan unregulated use of the book, as reading does not produce a copy
(except in the brain, but don't tell the lawyers).But in cyberspace, there's no way to "use" a work withoutsimultaneously making a "copy." In principle, and