This Commons Just Isn’t Creative

Readers: Licensing fails to impress


Letters What is creativity? How much does it rely on computers? And is copyright today abused so badly by rights holders that we face a new Dark Ages?

We threw up some of these questions in a long ramble last month, and received one of the most thoughtful postbags ever.

Because the piece touched on so many areas, not surprisingly, the views you expressed range far and wide. Amongst supporters of "Creative Commons" licenses, there's a firm conviction that draconian times call for ingenious measures.

But the view is countered by a widespread puzzlement that creativity is in any kind of crisis at all. The use of an irrevocable Commons license, which effectively ends any hope of the artist being compensated by the creative industries, doesn't seem fair or sensible for most readers.

For artists who's God-given talent is perhaps the only route to a better life, this seems quite a sacrifice.

And most readers find "remix culture" more than a bit old hat. Derivative and boring, you say.

How would Ray Charles felt about Creative Commons? I don't know, how did he feel about those old gospel songs in the public domain that he co-oped, changed up a bit, made secular and then made a ton of money with? Or maybe if the bit in the movie where he borrows the song from his producer and makes a hit out of it was real, Ray might like the idea of sharing, combining and creating.<br/>

Tim Boerger


Well put, Tim, but the great man was one of the first artists in history to demand the ownership of the master recordings. He doesn't sound like someone who would sign an irrevocable license allowing others to profit from his work. A Tin Cup awaits.

Mike Scott has a good point, too.

It seems very strange that you focus so much on paying the creator when under the *current* system something in excess of 99% of all creative works are created with no expectation of payment. What Creative Commons is doing is working out ways in which to enable wider use and reuse of this content, which as I say represents the vast majority of all creative work.

Indeed it does. . But don't one hit wonders deserve their day in the sun, too? Issuing the material under a reuse license may earn them a pat on the back from an expensive American law school, but it pretty much guarantees they won' be compensated.

I think you miss the point of the Creative Commons copyright [sic]. Surely it is intended for people who do not want to make money from their works. Surely it is intended to relax the automatic laws of copyright and yet retain some level of recognition and control without having to incur the expense of retaining a copyright lawyer.

This makes sense. It makes sense that the 99% of uncreative geeks out there, who have no hope of making any money out of their 'creative' works, can rant to their hearts content on their weblogs happy in the knowledge that their utopian vision remains complete. For the larger picture of copyright law and compensation for real creative genius, creative commons is irrelevant – it is not intended for this. Of course I may be completely wrong.

Brendhan Callaghan

Another reader has a nice illustration of where Creative Commons tags can be really useful, however.

I don't think the major goal for Creative Commons is to have Madonna or Robbie Williams release their latest songs under a CC license. Its more about creating a system where mostly hobbyists can cooperate and share creative works. Facilitating that in a similar way to how the GPL and BSD licenses have helped computer programmers cooperate and create things such as the GNU/Linux system.

For instance when I was back in school I was looking for some digital images of various national flags to put into a paper I was writing. The thing was even with the search engines around back then I had trouble finding what I wanted and I was also unsure about the legality of using any images I found (to this day I am not sure if an image of a national flag is copyrightable or not).

Anyway this experience directly lead to my setting up creating a open repository of flags in SVG format many years later, and while I decided from the start that I wanted it to be in the public domain, having the creative commons website there to both refer to for information about copyright, but also providing the technical and practical tools to put the images into the public domain was a great help.

Today the flag collection covers all national flags, most major international institutions, a wide range of subnational flags and many important historic flags. Being able to do this in the context of the Creative Commons led to over a 100 people contributing various flags to the collection, many of them with very hard designs. I guess your counterargument is that I could have just made the 5 simple nordic cross flags I did myself and then become rich selling those, personally I don't see that as a very likely scenario.

Creative Commons creates a sphere in which it is easy for the average person to find creative works to use in conjunction with their own. Be that poems to go with the drawing they make or music to go with the animation they make, or the other way around. Doing these kinda things outside the sphere of creative commons is to hard, cause you need to get permission which will at best cost you a lot of time. And not to mention that most of the 'creative' entertainment companies would give you an automatic 'no' even if what you asked them to do falls well inside what would be your fair use rights.

Christian Schaller

Christian identifies the permission anxiety nicely. Machine readable tags will undoubtedly help too. But for many Creative Commons supporters it isn't simply a convenience - advocates boast of "liberating" countries with the scheme. Since the original discussion was confined to how added literal licenses could help foster creative music culture, it isn't the answer we were looking for, we can perhaps agree. But many readers take issue with the assumptions behind the scheme. One picks up on the Lessig quote, "There's a class of speech that's not possible at all without P2P technologies".

Rubbish, says Andy Bright.

I disagree. With a $20 bill and a trip to Best Buy, or a credit card and a trip to Amazon this class of speech is entirely possible.

With either tool I can get the exact same thing as with a P2P connection - true I will miss out on the bonus adware and eventual lawsuit, but those types of speech I can do without. As for "Creative Commons", sounds like more people trying to justify ripping off other people's work by saying - well the only way the world won't stop is if everybody gives away everything for free.

The reality is that when you work your arse off to produce something, and nobody pays you for your effort, you're choices become, do what I love and starve or do something else and eat. I'd like to see the looks on the faces of these people if their employers decided not to pay them anything anymore. I wonder how many would keep working, and yet they expect artists of every sort to keep producing music, movies, books, paintings, or whatever for free for the benefit of everyone except themselves.

Another picks up on the assumption that creativity needs computers.

"the punks proved all you needed was three chords and some imagination. " but Status Quo did it first. Chris Elvidge

James Pickett has also noticed that admitting to liking folk or country has lost its stigma. "Admitting a liking for country used to be social death in the UK," he points out. Several Commonistas insist that both your reporter and PC Magazine columnist John C Dvorak have "missed the point", and that the licensing offers a genuine third way between copyright and public domain. And these advocates offered the boilerplate argument that a Creative Commons license confers additional freedoms to the creator.

Here's where it starts to get really interesting.

I can't speak for Mr Dvorak, but I can safely say we haven't missed this point it all. Take this example.

A Linux advocacy group emails me to ask permission for a reprint of an article, and I'm delighted to grant it. The Daily Express asks for permission, and I tell them where to shove it. Now that's a freedom I don't have by adding an unnecessary license to my work.

Now let's say the Linux advocacy group has been taken over by people I don't like. It asks for another reprint. I can change my mind, of course, but that's because I haven't signed over my rights under an irrevocable license. (And very few people tagging their work with Creative Commons licenses seem to realize that they're irrevocable).

So the argument is really about whether a literal and codified license is necessary or not. And literal types, such as lawyers, naturally think that it is. But when we hand things over to lawyers or bureaucrats, they tend to design systems which create lots of work for lawyers and bureaucrats. This doesn't necessirily benefit us.

And you'd think that asking for permission was truly a pants-wetting, Armageddon experience. It isn't.

The proof seems to be the vast amount of copyrighted material that's becoming available online, almost everywhere you look.

So what makes people feel the end of the world is nigh? As so often happens, this is something you pick up and run with.

Excellent article about Creative Commons, well done. It's amazing how many campaigns have less to do with a real cause and more to do with a fashionable posture. It's like people think they're doing good, but really they just want to look good.

Kris

Which is certainly reflected in the postbag. Don't knock Creative Commons, because at least they're doing something... anything. But badge-wearing isn't enough, you reckon.

I think the whole techo-utopian mindset, which is trumpeted with such fervour by bloggers and Harvard Law professors, but takes hold, at one time or another, of most techies to a certain degree, stems from the fact that real-world applications of technology take a ridiculously long time to get implemented, and this frustrates us techies to no end.

You see, just looking at the technology we have available today, we know that very soon we'll be using these all-singing all-dancing gadgets with constant connectivity that will allow us access to just about every piece of information known to man from any device anywhere. We know physical distribution of information is a dinosaur concept on its way out. I know my future kids (I'm in my late 20s) will find it ridiculously quaint that in order to watch a movie I had to go to a store, buy this plastic box with a shiny disc inside, stick in a black device and fiddle with a remote control, or that I actually had to physically transport the disc to my friend's house when I wanted to watch the movie there. They'll scratch their heads when I tell them what a wonderful revelation it was to be able to skip the going to the store bit and actually order the disc from my computer (but not my TV!) and have it delivered several days later.

For them, any content will be a few clicks away at the nearest screen, whether it's in the living room, on their mobile device or in the seatback in front of them on a transatlantic flight.

What bugs the techno-utopians, or those of us who unwittingly stray into that mindset when we've been reading too many of their blogs, is that we have the actual, raw technology to do all this right now. The average non-techie is still in awe of the shiny discs and amazon's super saver delivery, but we techies are already frustrated that the world doesn't get its act together and offer us this wonderful networked future here and now. What we don't realise is that it takes time for the world to get its act together. It takes time to build the infrastructure, agree on the protocols, and most importantly, figure out how and who to pay for the privilege. As you so elegantly demonstrate, nobody disagrees with the end goal of all these new technologies, nor with the inevitability of us reaching it. But it's the techno-utopians that fail to see that we can't get from shiny discs to ubiquitous infoportals in a day, and the road is going to be hard, bumpy, and they're going to be dozens of double-backs and dead-ends on the way. Now if only we'd be a little more patient maybe we would get there a while sooner.

Stephanos Piperoglou


What makes a techno utopian tick? Reader Andy has a few ideas that get to the core.

Your article on Creativity, Computers and Copyright reaffirms three concepts that are usually unvoiced, but underlie geekdom:

1 - That the geek experience somehow supplants all previous culture and creative expression. Previous measures of literary worth, the skill of a composer or the talent of a film director don't apply to new media simply because it's on a different platform. Hence piss-poor blogs, flash-rendered animals dancing to looped samples and ultimately the Crazy Frog. I have some suspicion that this reflects the relative youth and limited cultural education of a generation of engineers.

2 - That the process is more important than the result, cooler still if it involves a new computer and coolest if blue LEDs are involved. This is endemic in technologists - from the desire that every item in our house should have a network connection, to the idea that the order in which you click on things in a webshop is somehow patentable. Though that latter example sits badly with the Open Source crowd, it's bourn of the natural tendancy of computer engineers to focus on the means rather than the end. Here, complex license schemes are the means and the end remains vaguely defined and as far off as ever.

3 - That creativity is an unlimited resource, only held back by the limitations of the distribution network and these damn tools. If we could only put video cameras in the hands of every person on the planet, and provide universal access to the results, thousands of new film makers will be discovered. This is a fallacy that has surfaced with each technological step in media - from satellite television to web blogs.

The only grain of truth is that we're steadily approaching the event horizon of a million monkeys - though as yet Shakespeare has not been sighted.

Keep up the good work,

Andy Toone

Thanks Andy. The point about mistaking means for ends seems to be very appropriate. Recently we noticed some net nerds have been forming social clubs under the banner "Free Culture". Good for them, we say, and let's hope they get laid - the whole point of joining any club. But who on earth demands that culture be "Free"?

From two reccie missions we conducted - purely for research purposes, of course - into Amoeba Records today and downtown midnight San Francisco last night revealed thousands of people willingly handing over their earnings to enjoy culture. Their only demand being that it be "Good Culture".

So some people can be too clever for their own good. What else did we miss? Write and tell us. ®


Other stories you might like

  • Share your experience: How does your organization introduce new systems?

    The answer is rarely obvious. Take part in our short poll and we'll find out together

    Reg Reader Survey The introduction of new systems into an organization is essential. If we stay still, if we continue to rely on legacy systems, if we fail to innovate – well, we (or, in reality, the company) will die. As business guru Sir John Harvey-Jones once put it: “If you are doing things the same way as two years ago, you are almost certainly doing them wrong.”

    But who should lead innovation in our companies? Who should be introducing new systems? The answer is not obvious.

    On one hand, the introduction of new systems into the business should be led by the business. In principle, the people doing the work, dealing with the suppliers, selling to the customers, are best placed to be standing up and saying: “We need the system to do X,” whether their motivation be to reduce cost, increase revenues, make products more efficiently, or even bolster our environmental credentials.

    Continue reading
  • These Rapoo webcams won't blow your mind, but they also won't break the bank

    And they're almost certainly better than a laptop jowel-cam

    Review It has been a long 20 months since Lockdown 1.0, and despite the best efforts of Google and Zoom et al to filter out the worst effects of built-in laptop webcams, a replacement might be in order for the long haul ahead.

    With this in mind, El Reg's intrepid reviews desk looked at a pair of inexpensive Rapoo webcams in search for an alternative to the horror of our Dell XPS nose-cam.

    Rapoo sent us its higher-end XW2K, a 2K 30fps device and, at the other end of the scale, the 720p XW170. Neither will break the bank, coming in at around £40 and £25 respectively from online retailers, but do include some handy features, such as autofocus and a noise cancelling microphone.

    Continue reading
  • It's one thing to have the world in your hands – what are you going to do with it?

    Google won the patent battle against ART+COM, but we were left with little more than a toy

    Column I used to think technology could change the world. Google's vision is different: it just wants you to sort of play with the world. That's fun, but it's not as powerful as it could be.

    Despite the fact that it often gives me a stomach-churning sense of motion sickness, I've been spending quite a bit of time lately fully immersed in Google Earth VR. Pop down inside a major city centre – Sydney, San Francisco or London – and the intense data-gathering work performed by Google's global fleet of scanning vehicles shows up in eye-popping detail.

    Buildings are rendered photorealistically, using the mathematics of photogrammetry to extrude three-dimensional solids from multiple two-dimensional images. Trees resolve across successive passes from childlike lollipops into complex textured forms. Yet what should feel absolutely real seems exactly the opposite – leaving me cold, as though I've stumbled onto a global-scale miniature train set, built by someone with too much time on their hands. What good is it, really?

    Continue reading
  • Why Cloud First should not have to mean Cloud Everywhere

    HPE urges 'consciously hybrid' strategy for UK public sector

    Sponsored In 2013, the UK government heralded Cloud First, a ground-breaking strategy to drive cloud adoption across the public sector. Eight years on, and much of UK public sector IT still runs on-premises - and all too often - on obsolete technologies.

    Today the government‘s message boils down to “cloud first, if you can” - perhaps in recognition that modernising complex legacy systems is hard. But in the private sector today, enterprises are typically mixing and matching cloud and on-premises infrastructure, according to the best business fit for their needs.

    The UK government should also adopt a “consciously hybrid” approach, according to HPE, The global technology company is calling for the entire IT industry to step up so that the public sector can modernise where needed and keep up with innovation: “We’re calling for a collective IT industry response to the problem,” says Russell MacDonald, HPE strategic advisor to the public sector.

    Continue reading
  • A Raspberry Pi HAT for the Lego Technic fan

    Sneaking in programming under the guise of plastic bricks

    There is good news for the intersection of Lego and Raspberry Pi fans today, as a new HAT (the delightfully named Hardware Attached on Top) will be unveiled for the diminutive computer to control Technic motors and sensors.

    Continue reading
  • Reg scribe spends week being watched by government Bluetooth wristband, emerges to more surveillance

    Home quarantine week was the price for an overseas trip, ongoing observation is the price of COVID-19

    Feature My family and I recently returned to Singapore after an overseas trip that, for the first time in over a year, did not require the ordeal of two weeks of quarantine in a hotel room.

    Instead, returning travelers are required to stay at home, wear a government-issued tracking device, and stay within range of a government-issued Bluetooth beacon at all times for a week … or else. No visitors are allowed and only a medical emergency is a ticket out. But that sounded easy compared to the hotel quarantine we endured in 2020.

    Continue reading
  • Intel teases 'software-defined silicon' with Linux kernel contribution – and won't say why

    It might enable activation of entirely new features on existing Xeon CPUs … or, you know, not

    Intel has teased a new tech it calls "Software Defined Silicon" (SDSi) but is saying almost nothing about it – and has told The Register it could amount to nothing.

    SDSi popped up around three weeks ago in a post to the Linux Kernel mailing list, in which an Intel Linux software engineer named David Box described it as "a post-manufacturing mechanism for activating additional silicon features".

    "Features are enabled through a license activation process," he wrote. "The SDSi driver provides a per-socket, ioctl interface for applications to perform three main provisioning functions." Those provisioning functions are:

    Continue reading
  • Chip manufacturers are going back to the future for automotive silicon

    Where we're going, we don't need 5nm

    Analysis Cars are gaining momentum as computers on wheels, though chip manufacturers' auto focus isn't on making components using the latest and greatest fabrication nodes.

    Instead, companies that include Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co and Globalfoundries are turning back the clock and investing billions in factories that use older manufacturing techniques to make chips for vehicles.

    The rapid digitization and electrification of cars has created a giant demand for smaller, more power-efficient auto chips, said Jim McGregor, principal analyst at Tirias Research. He added that cars don't necessarily need the latest manufacturing processes, though, and many are still using analog-based components for various functions.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021