« Aharonian on IBM's Patent Hypocrisy |
Main
| How to Free Your Speech »
April 13, 2005
BBC Rips, Mixes Creative Commons
Posted by
The BBC/Channel 4/Open University/British Film Institute "creative archive" license I wrote about this past weekend launches today, and the website is now online: Creative Archive License Group.
The license is of course derived from the Creative Commons licenses, and the website looks like a mod-version of the CC site, complete with adorable icons. So the BBC and co. have themselves followed the advice they give in the project tagline: "Find it. Rip it. Mix it. Share it. Come and get it."
Update: In answer to a few queries from Copyfight readers: No, I don't personally have the backstory details on why the BBC and friends chose to create its own license and make this a pilot project -- but you can read about whys a bit here.
Update #2: Much, much more background detail here & here.
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Use
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › MSFT to Region-Lock Xbox One on Launch
- › Myriad Genetics, One Opinion
- › Analyzing Netflix's Economics Misses Netflix's Long Game
- › Oh, Yeah, DOJ is Still Suing Apple over E-Books
- › Why CNN Makes Lots of Money Despite Sucking
- › Microsoft Turns Xbox One into DRM Nanny
- › NFB Settles with Free Library of Phila
- › The White House vs Patent Trolls - So What?
1. Crosbie Fitch on April 14, 2005 1:35 PM writes...
The big grok failure on the part of the BBC et al with this license is their delusion that they can somehow keep it national.
If they keep their collective heads in the sand, and just create a license for the UK, I suspect they think things will remain as secured as they ever were as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
All they will achieve is in fact the opposite of what they presumably intended. Instead of the UK audience having greater privilege than everyone else, they will have the least. The rest of the world will take far greater liberties with the BBC's content (given they are explicitly unlicensed, illegitimate users in the first place and thus have no legitimate interests to protect), and the UK populace will be restricted by the license.
If the BBC had sensibly realised that the Internet is not subject to geographic borders, they would have used a Creative Commons license directly and not pussy-footed around trying to restrict things to the UK with their own half-baked license.
If you use a license that can be utilised globally, then everyone who uses it has an interest in observing it. A global rather than a national quid pro quo.
This is what the BBC has missed. Open Source (to use the best example) is a jealously guarded and protected license by the people who enjoy its benefits (those who use and build upon the software) where it applies - and it applies globally.
If someone created an Open Source license that said 'not for use outside the UK' then the software would effectively be freely useable outside the UK and far less restricted.
Someone, somewhere in the BBC doesn't quite get it.
If you entrust your art to the world on the proviso that their derivatives from it are protected, then your art is in good hands that will gladly police it for you. If you ungraciously deny your art to them, despite its ready availability, you get no thanks, no respect, and no care - just the very exploitation you wished to avoid.
Permalink to Comment