Creative Commons

In our current climate, most people think of copyright as the thing that protects a person’s intellectual property.  That’s partially right.  There’s more to it though.  Culture is built on creative effort, and creativity inspires more creativity. If you read the excerpt to the US Constitution’s “Copyright Clause”  printed below (in blue) you’ll see that the author(s) of this clause were just as concerned with making sure that individual and collective creativity was not squelched as it is with the proprietary rights of creators.

We’ve come a long way from the days of 14 year copyrights that had to be applied for.  Now, anything you create is automatically copyrighted and that copyright survives your death by 70 years. I don’t know aobut you – but that seems effectively, if not literally, limitLESS to me!

What can we do about it?  Well, we can attempt to change the laws, but production companies with deep pockets are likely to win that battle. OR we can choose the degree to which we share our creations, allow them to be used by others: altered, enhanced, or as-is, it’s up to you.  Copyright legislation which became effective January 1, 1978, states that a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created.  “Created” is defined as produced in some fixed form.

There are advantages to the creator and our culture when some less extreme “limit” is placed on  creative work.   Collaboration may take creative forms, enhancing the final product.  Inspiration flows. New authors, com[posers, etc . . . may get more exposure and still maintain at least partial control, and receive income from, their work.  Unlike registration with the US Copyright Office licensing your work through Creative Commons is free, flexible, and fast.

• The copyright clause of the US Constitution states that the purpose of copyright is : “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” In other words, the original intent was to LIMIT the exclusive right to creative property.

Creative Commons offers a number of alternative licenses. My presentation will give and overview of how these are used and why one would choose a particular license. Creative Commons also offers custom licensing which allows an author to specify exactly how, and under what circumstances, her work may be used by others.

Creative Commons is more than an alternative copyright process. It is a way of reclaiming creativity as a cultural, social process as well as an economic one. Most ideally, it is an ethical platform which reminds us that creativity is a means of contributing to our culture, not simply control ideas and amass wealth.

Because we have the right to share our own intellectual property as we see fit, creative commons is a legal, and effective way clarify to the pubic exactly to what degree you are willing to share your creations. Options include, but are far from limited to, a copyright in the spirit and model of the original US copyright limit of 14 years, followed by an automatic rollover into the public domain.

I’m doing my term presentation on Creative commons, and it will be available online.  Until then, check the Creative Commons Website for more details.  Our culture will be more exciting for it!

This is Scary

From the Markle Foundation Weekly Digest:

Centers Tap Into Personal Databases
State Groups Were Formed After 9/11
BY ROBERT O’HARROW JR., WASHINGTON POST
Intelligence centers run by states across the country have access to personal information about millions of Americans, including unlisted cellphone numbers, insurance claims, driver’s license photographs and credit reports, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.

One center also has access to top-secret data systems at the CIA, the document shows, though it’s not clear what information those systems contain.

(you can read the rest HERE: )

FUSION CENTERS?!

How’s that for a wad of new-speak crap?

What a Fusion Center does is gather information. All kinds of information. About anyone. About you. You don’t have any control over it. It can be sold. It can be disseminated for any number of purposes, most of which have not one thing to do with keeping you, me, or Mary-Jane down the street one bit safer than we are right now – or thought we were before September 2001.

According to Sue Reingold, deputy program manager in the (NEWSPEAK ALERT!) Information Sharing Environment Office ( a federal office dedicated to “improving information sharing”) the office operates with “oversight that is well understood and transparent to the public.” Oh? I really must get my vision checked. Or, perhaps I just have to give someone my credit card information and let them take $49.95 for a peek at what they are looking at. Oh, never mind – they already have that information if they want it.

“Fusion centers are vital to state and local efforts to fight crime, including terrorism,” she said.

Here are some of the pieces of information that help us “fight terrorism”

• Wage and property records
• Traffic ticket records
• Credit reports
• Your cell phone number
• Your unlisted phone number
• Wage records
• Where you work
• Insurance claims
• Property records
• What kind of car(s) you own and what you paid for them
• Utility records
• And that cute little mole on your right butt cheek. Sorry.

This is not a usual post for me – but I find this all outrageous. I can’t help it. We (I say “we” because I’m told this is still a democracy) keep letting the powers that be put pretty patriotic spins on things that should scare us to death.

I find it DEEPLY offensive, in fact, I find it obscene, (but most would not agree with obscene and, as stated in the previous post, I don’t have a right to not be offended.) That the events of September 11th 2001 have been used, and continue to be used, to sanction violations of our right to privacy.

It was inevitable that such a tragedy would change our nation. That does NOT mean, however, that we have to just sit back and watch changes we believe to be wrong simply HAPPEN. Allowing things to just happen is wrong. And, at the risk of seeming overly dramatic (I wish I believed this was) are you familiar with the song “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” ? It was written for the play Cabaret - (Cabaret is set in Weinmar Germany during the rise of the Third Reich) the original intention was to show how easily people’s emotions can be played – particularly when they feel afraid and hard done by – and how that play on their emotions can lead them into committing wrongs they never believed they would.

Are we turning into Nazi Germany? I hope not, but our minds and our hearts are being played. I think it behooves us to pay attention.

And what about “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” ? Well, look at this and consider what happens when this same kind of nationalistic sentimentality is put to post 9/11 US imagery:

Janet Reno vs the ACLU — 1997

Why do you see all that offensive stuff on the Web? Well, it has to do with a pesky little decision by the US supreme court in 1997. The story goes smething like this:

Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was passed into law by the Clinton administration allowed criminal penalties for anyone who:

“knowingly (A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.”

HOWEVER – the ACLU, representing DOZENS of US organizations (and not all of them part of the adult entertainment industry either) made the case that the CDA was 1) a violation of free speech and 2) so vague as to be either unenforceable, or, too easily interpreted and enforced in ways that could not be predicted – which was also a violation of the 5th Amendment (that’s the one that, among other things, guarantees anyone accused of a crime due process and the opportunity to defend themselves – it’s also the one all those cheesy law shows on TV are referring to when you hear someone say something like “I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.”)

In the end, the 5th Amendment didn’t play a big role in the decision. In a 5/2 vote – the US supreme court decided that rulings that applied to broadcast media (governed by the FCC) did not apply to the internet, the same way they didn’t apply to cable TV. The CDA was overturned.

Even the dissenters – Judges Renquist and O’Conner – more or less agreed. They just wished – as many of us do – that there was technologically feasible way (server side or user side – preferably user side – and if you’ve tried any home filters you know they don’t work very well) to choose what you want to look at – rather than just stumble on it – or have your child stumble on it. Well – over a decade has passed and we still don’t reliable technology for this purpose.

Majority Opinion:

§223(a)(1)(B), §223(a)(2), §223(d) of the CDA are unconstitutional and unenforceable, except for cases of obscenity or child pornography, because they abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment and are substantially overbroad. The Internet is entitled to the full protection given to media like the print press; the special factors justifying government regulation of broadcast media do not apply.

Minority Opinion:

Cyberspace is malleable. Thus, it is possible to construct barriers in cyberspace and use them to screen for identity, making cyberspace more like the physical world and consequently, more amenable to zoning laws. This transformation is already underway. Cyberspace is moving … from a relatively unzoned place to a universe that is extraordinarily well zoned.

Too bad that wasn’t true – nor is it likely to be soon. The world is a big place – and people are funnier than anyone. How would we ever get people to agree on what was or was not “offencive” ? What about something obscene? Do you “know it when you see it”? Would the guy next door agree? How about some guy ½ way around the world?

Well – at least child pornography is obvious, right? Is it? How about those “performers” who look 12, but can prove they are 18? What about ANIMATED children? (That’s still being argued last I heard – personally I hope they find a constitutional way to outlaw it)

When it comes to child pornography, who are we trying to protect? It seems that the primary focus has been on potential child performers. But – if the performer is not a child – or not even flesh and blood, well . . .

Please don’t shoot the messenger.

I find this whole issue quite frustrating. So far, our Supreme Court has ruled that the right to free speech supersedes the right of people to not be offended. And – I agree, even when it makes me cringe.