= Creative Commons (cc) = == Event == International summer school "Digitization and its Impact on Society" Technische Universitaet Dresden September 29 - October 5, 2013 [2013-09-29 -- 2013-10-05] http://linguistik.zih.tu-dresden.de/digitization/ http://linguistik.zih.tu-dresden.de/digitization/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Program_summerschool-Digitization1.pdf http://openaccess.tu-dresden.de/ocs/index.php/digitization/summerschool13/schedConf/overview 2013-10-01 Tuesday 11:00-12:30 "(cc) license" - duration 2 hours. max 40min talk. some tasks. and discussion. == Goals == * introduce the concept of the creative commons license. * show some implications and impact to the internet. * allow everyone to participate through a text pad == Origin == the source file to this "paper": http://www.guckes.net/talks/2013-09-29-05.digitization.txt and its resulting file after processing with AsciiDoc: http://www.guckes.net/talks/2013-09-29-05.digitization.html == License == (cc) cc-by Sven Guckes digitization@guckes.net == Background == background: math+cs. i like free software - and all free things. :) so expect a talk with some nerdy stuff from the internets. == Eco+Law == implications for economy and law is left to the listener/reader as an exercise. ;) as for the impact on economics+law: "i am not a lawyer" (IANAL) - and i am no economist, either. so.. to make this clear: i am neither a lawyer nor an economist (IANALNAE). == Preparation == ("wake up!") use your device to log in to the wifi, and point your browser to this URL: http://guckes.titanpad.com/5 everyone is requested to add comments, suggestions, thoughts to this textpad any time during the talk and workshop. add your name to the list of participants. we'll talk about it at the end. and we'll discuss whether we will license the result with (cc) - or not. == Creative Commons == http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons http://www.creativecommons.org a new license since 2001. a lot of free *software* runs on these licenses: BSD, GPL, LGPL (and dozens more ;-) 1984: FSF, RMS, and all that "free as in freedom (not as in free beer)" freedoms of free software: open source code, install any amount of times, use for *any* purpose, allows adaption by change, and copying on (including changes). side note: "any purpose" also allows all bad ones... do we need a license which excludes this? some people say YES and are working on it. but not all digital or digitized works are software. there're pictures and sounds (aka "multimedia" ;-). but to many people those licenses are "much too free". even though the creators would like to share their works as "data" - they would like to impose some demands on these things: eg attribution of creator, commercial application, and restriction to license of derivative works. (in short: creator, money, derivative works) so we'll talk about "creative works" - which are to be *shared* in a *digital* way. (did someone say "digitization"?) so here's "creative commons": it is to fill the gap between "all rights reserved" (copyright) and "it's all free" (eg copyleft and free software) so the slogan of creative commons describing the gap in between is: "some rights reserved". == Licenses == logo/sign: (cc) cc-by = Attribution (Commercial) cc-by-nd = Attribution (Commercial) No Derivatives cc-by-sa = Attribution (Commercial) Share Alike cc-by-nc = Attribution Non-Commercial cc-by-nc-nd = Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives cc-by-nc-sa = Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike note: all NC and ND make the work NON-free! the "non-commercial" takes away the right to use the data in a commercial aspect, and the "non-derivative" takes away the "remix". specials: * cc0 NO rights reserved --> public domain * version 3.0? * country for jurisdiction.. three forms of each license: * for people * for computers * for lawyers == History == 2001 - founded 2002 feb - first article 2002 dec - first set of licenses ... (magic happens) 2008 - ca 130million works licensed 2011 oct - flickr hosts 200million (cc) pics. 2011 - 100 affiliates in 70 countries (source: wikipedia) == Relevance == typical wikipedia question: is it relevant? hell, yeah! == Big Players == who uses (cc)? flickr, wikipedia; ebay, google, microsoft, nike, red hat == Examples == http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNZBSZD16cY "Beatbox Brilliance: Tom Thum at TEDxSydney" the talk is licensed with "by-nc-nd" http://ragesoss.com/blog/2013/07/12/the-use-aaron-swartz-photographs/ CC in use with pics of Aaron Swartz == Impact == Education. Impact: BIG! ENORMOUS! HUGE! (what did you expect?) why? the (cc) license opens up digital works for collaboration. but *legally* so - between "all mine" and "everyone's". no more "it's all mine" or "no more rights". this adds more possibilities for collaboration. more works will be available. take a look! of course this also poses new problems of ownership and inheritance - but hopefully the lawyers figure it out to keep the possibilities for everyone. == Dream == "i have a dream:" give everyone on earth a copy of all open data, knowledge, libraries.. probably leads to this: "hard disk too heavy error" ;-) okay.. give everyone *access* to all (opened) data? do we need to create this right? no, it already exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access "Finland: By July 2010, every person in Finland was to have access to a one-megabit per second broadband connection, according to the Ministry of Transport and Communications. And by 2015, access to a 100 Mbit/s connection." i hope we shall all try to add to these information with both creativity and scientific facts and make them all available to everyone as fast as possible. == Imagine == a video to see: Jack Andraka: Detecting pancreatic cancer.. at (age) 15 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq4x8C6Dcf8 Jack Andraka is a fifteen year old .. He recently developed a novel paper sensor that could detect pancreatic, ovarian, and lung cancer in 5 minutes for as little as 3 cents. he signed off his talk with these words: ".. you could be changing the world with this stuff you do on the internet. so - if i had done all my research on google and wikipedia.. and i'm a fifteen-year-old.. imagine what you could do!" will this solve all of our problems? probably not all. but maybe some?! == Control == can we solve the usual problems with control? * bandwidth - should we distribute on local mirrors? * access control - do we really need it? * filters - can we drop the bad stuff? can we ever solve this? do these licenses help? == Thought == i leave you with this thought: what if the cure to cancer/hiv.. was trapped in the brain of a person who cannot afford education? maybe we should open up more data and possibly license it with (cc) to allow for more participation. thanks for listening! (BREAK?) == Personal View == my personal experiences with software: example: Robert Hess (Sharedevil) http://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=101667482302251&w=2 http://www.ssrc.hku.hk/tb-issues/TidBITS-310.html#lnk2 http://www.ilenesmachine.com/partylist.shtml#robert the thoughtpattern incident (Stephen Zagerman, bananafish software). HTTP://www.wheels.org/monkeywrench/?p=462 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.apps/T2NrjYgC4CY https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.sys.mac.apps/thought.pattern$20bananafish/comp.sys.mac.apps/mI7fLEwJdns/HBpEmXxM6g4J https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.sys.mac.apps/bananafish$20software$20/comp.sys.mac.apps/DbZSP_gC63s/WDOIRub4vJgJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.sys.mac.apps/bananafish$20software$20/comp.sys.mac.apps/Rr9AiR7IDJA/tk_7OPzCMu8J https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.sys.mac.apps/$20stephen$20zagerman/comp.sys.mac.apps/ovRHPERxC8o/14iFeGINLXkJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.sys.mac.apps/$20stephen$20zagerman/comp.sys.mac.apps/bJOSs9U1mWA/AQlzW6-5MnwJ "too long, didn;t read" (tl;dr): maintenance of code is tied to people's lives. a person dies -> the maintenance of software dies. (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor) opening the software (ie with open licenses) allows others to carry on with development. "release early, release often." but dont forget a license. (THE END? TIME CHECK!) == Software Licenses == a thought on software licenses. (a bit philosophical. extra.) software was a by-product which was shipped with hardware. only when software could be re-used and applied to other machines by means of compilers it became a product of its own. precompiled to CPUs it was put on data media (like floppies), put into boxes and shipped with paper as products of its own. however, software as algorithms was put into libraries and became re-usable. together we are standing on the shoulders of libraries which are standing on the shoulders of CPUs which are standing on the shoulders of highly integrated circuits which are standing on the shoulders of the giants of computer scientists and mathematicians of hundreds of years ago. can we really claim that it was *us* who have created all this? do we have the right to claim this? is it even legal to take away the rights to using bits of software from others? == Black Holes == incidentally - the projects PRISM and THEORA use your tax money to take *copies* of everything both illegally and without anyone's consent, but they hand out nothing of these to anyone. they are like black holes, sucking everything in and never emitting any of it (to the public). "now, kids, what is *wrong* with this picture?" if you dont like it, well, dont give them money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora but maybe you want to work for the dark side? "come over - we got cookies!" ;-) == Extra == some more things to look at: * registered commons - http://www.registeredcommons.org/about * bitcoinproof - registration of data through bitcoin transaction with data hash. http://vog.github.io/bitcoinproof/ "spoken wikipedia" (wikipedia isnt just text and pictures alone): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Gesprochene_Wikipedia why not apply a commons license to the creation of an economy? http://bollier.org/blog/bauwens-joins-ecuador-planning-commons-based-peer-production-economy Fri, 09/20/2013 David Bollier: Bauwens Joins Ecuador in Planning a Commons-based, Peer Production Economy (cc) license within a book: http://issuu.com/irights_info/docs/was-bleibt_nachhaltigkeit-der-kultu/3?e=5321126/4969234 "Was bleibt? Nachhaltigkeit der Kultur in der digitalen Welt" Herausgegeben von Paul Klimpel und Jürgen Keiper Print: Veröffentlicht am 25.09.2013 ISBN 978-3-944362-03-8 Broschiert, 256 Seiten EUR 8,00 (inkl. 7 % USt. und Versand in Deutschland) E-Book Veröffentlicht am 25.09.2013 ISBN 978-3-944362-13-7 Format: EPUB, Kindle EUR 3,99 recent foundation [2013-09-25] of a new collecting society: "Cultural Commons Collecting Society" aka "C3S" [http://www.c3s.cc/]: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/GEMA-Alternative-C3S-gegruendet-1967097.html "In Hamburg hat sich am gestrigen Mittwochabend die Cultural Commons Collecting Society (C3S) gegründet, die sich als Alternative zur GEMA etablieren will." http://kompass.im/2013/09/piraten-gratulieren-verwertungsgesellschaft-c3s-zur-erfolgreichen-gruendung/ "Die C3S versteht sich als faire und schlanke Plattform, die gerade modernen Lizenzschlüsseln wie Creative Commons ein angemessenes Rechtemanagement und Vergütungen garantieren möchte." http://www.c3s.cc/ Die C3S ist eine gemeinschaftliche Initiative mit KünstlerInnen und für KünstlerInnen, eine neue und richtungsweisende europäische Verwertungsgesellschaft zu gründen. Eine nicht-exklusive Verwertungsgesellschaft, die es MusikerInnen ermöglicht, ihre unter nicht-kommerziellen Creative-Commons-Lizenzen veröffentlichten Werke außerhalb traditioneller Schemata kommerziell verwerten zu lassen. Mehr als das, die C3S wird auch offen sein für die kommerzielle Verwertung von Werken unter anderen freien Lizenzen einschließlich der Werke, die ohne explizit definierte Lizenz veröffentlicht werden. and last but not least - yet another other license: http://www.wtfpl.net/txt/copying/ Do What(ever) The Fuck You Want To Public License (wtfpl) remember: it's *your* choice! :-) == Qs == some questions which generally appear quite often: * how to tell the "good data" from "bad data"? * shouldnt content be *rated* by professionals than laymen? * shouldnt content be *paid* for rather than giving it away? unresolved issue. good points for each view. please discuss! Latest change: Sat Sep 28 07:05:23 CEST 2013 vim: set et ft=sven tw=999 nowrap: THPXRF EOF