Kevin Cheng  

Creative Commons Critique

July 21st, 2005 by Kevin Cheng ::

Following on our discussion last week about usability and legalese, there’s a great article on how Creative Commons has some unanswered questions. You’ll notice we don’t use CC here not because we don’t like what they’re trying to accomplish but because we don’t think it’s really working/helping anything in its current implementation.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1838244,00.asp…

6 Responses to “Creative Commons Critique”
Matt May wrote:

Kevin, don’t believe the FUD. Dvorak is demonstrably clueless when it comes to CC.

My personal favorite part of the article was where he said, Creative Commons didn’t return my email, so I got my information from one of its critics. Brilliant.

Seriously, if you have any questions about CC, feel free to ask them here, and I’ll answer them. But this is the worst possible article to use as a basis for disliking CC.

Robby Slaughter wrote:

Using CC is just like hiring a lawyer to define how your content can be used, only it’s free and you have less (basically six total) choices. That’s it folks, nothing more to see here.

Unfortunately, the real problem is that the *nature of information* is direct conflict with copyright law. There’s nothing to prevent Tom and Kevin from editing this comment, changing the source from mine to another name, or printing a billion copies at Kinko’s. The law might be written to protect me, but the very structure of the universe trumps the law because flinging, dicing, and mixing bits is wonderfully painless.

Copyright advocates, your days are numbered. Not because anyone is coming after you, but because you’re pushing a worldview that is ever-more obviously inconsisent with the facts.

Jason Schultz wrote:

Yes, Dvorak makes numerous factual misstatements in his article. And almost all of the legal conclusions are erroneous. I agree that CC needs a better explanation and some better implementations but it is a fine licensing system for many people. For a more detailed critique, see http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2005/07/19/dvorak-on-creative-commons-humbug/

Robby Slaughter wrote:

Copyright is bad for all artists, large and small. It’s much worse though for superstars, because it’s the cornerstone of their finanical wealth. A small local band who loses money on CDs anyway is probably going to love a bootlegging community that gets people to come to their shows. A gold-record selling diva, on the other hand, will turn her fans into criminals (who turn on her) by trying to control content with copyright.

How do artists get compensated in a post-copyright society? Centralized pay-for-play distribution. Suppose Internet access included a very small per-bit charge of a fraction of a cent, which went directly to the content provider of that bit. Simple, elegant. Everybody wins.

LUSER to you? wrote:

Ludicrous post. Obviously no research was done on your part on just how great Creative Commons may be. You presented a one sided, negative viewpoint on a super great topic.

Instead of opening up with a well researched and open review of CC you took a heavily biased ingrained assumption based post.

All this Comic does is make fun of people anyway right? So why not bully around a few more great ideas until you’ve dissed creative innovators so much you look like your comic characters you made fun of this week.

So you say you care about the *USER* eh?
…well is that your lovely label for
*human-beings* ? And you even title a comic LUSER? Watch out what you project for humanity and machines for the future.

Read some of the BETTER points about CC before you throw punches and get snappy + all trigger happy.

Research of CC gettin busy

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1
http://www.searchengineguide.com/hartzer/003877.html
http://search.yahoo.com/cc
http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/001528.html
http://creativecommons.org/wired/
http://creativecommons.org.au/
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/archive/2003/09
http://za.creativecommons.org/blog/archives/2004/10/21/
http://www.adaptivepath.com/team/pr/archives/041205/index.php
http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39130155,00.htm
http://codebook.jot.com/CCTerms
http://p2p.weblogsinc.com/entry/2983446234500868/
http://builder.com.com/5100-6401-1046327.html
http://weblogs.about.com/od/issuesanddiscussions/a/creativecommons.htm
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2005/01/21/sharingitalysartworksviathe.htm
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0722-cbcconservation.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/21/creativity/
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39191659,00.htm
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24666
many many more good links….

Well I’ll bet that will get you started.
I hope you become humble enough to give praise instead of bash creatives so much.

Kevin Cheng wrote:

Ooook. I’m all for discussion and in case you don’t notice, we do a lot of that around here. Thanks for the great links. I’ll definitely go check them out.

And by the way, this isn’t a “post” it’s a “hmmm look at this article”. As such, there are things in the article I don’t agree with, and there are things that I have (or had until some here have answered) as open questions. Clearly, there are miscommunications happening and some aspects need to be communicated better. The only research I should have to do is read the CC site. That’s it.

Quality links are those add to the discussion like Jason Schultz’s blog response. Non quality likns are things like linking Adaptive Path’s press release that their CC redesign (which I liked) got a Webby nomination. Uh. Ok. How’s that related to what CC is and how it helps?


Leave a Reply


OK/Cancel is a comic strip collaboration co-written and co-illustrated by Kevin Cheng and Tom Chi. Our subject matter focuses on interfaces, good and bad and the people behind the industry of building interfaces - usability specialists, interaction designers, human-computer interaction (HCI) experts, industrial designers, etc. (Who Links Here) ?