André Beemsterboer, If you can't beat them, join them - DRM as the future for collecting societies, INDICARE, December 14, 2004. Excerpt: 'Authors should be aware of the fact that if they step out and manage their rights individually this can have advantages, but it can be also dangerous for them....I think that CC is very good as a principle. I do not think that CC is an important instrument for usage on a large scale. One of my points of criticism is that CC creates the feeling that no authorisation is needed at all. And I don't agree with that. Also with CC, you still need authorisation from the owner, because also with CC, the author still wants to maintain a certain degree of control over how his work is distributed, and that his name is mentioned. This means that there are certain licensing conditions in the CC that need to be maintained and monitored. To put it very bluntly, the only difference between a collecting society and the collective use of CCs is money. With one, you get money, with the other not. CC lacks a monitoring mechanism. Who is going to check whether the licensing conditions are met, and who is going to pay for the costs of monitoring? The author?'
(PS: This is full of misunderstandings. CC licenses *give* authorization. When there are restrictions on the permission to use the content, CC licenses make them very clear, clearer than any standard licenses and certainly clearer than DRM. There's no reason why CC couldn't work on a "large scale". If the point is that not every rights holder wants a CC license, that's a given; but CC licenses can serve everyone who only wants some rights reserved. Money is not the difference; CC licenses are entirely compatible with earning money from content. It's true that CC licenses lack a monitoring mechanism, if this means an automated monitor. But CC authors turn to CC precisely to avoid the kind of automated monitors represented by DRM. Besides, the lack of a monitor does not harm most CC authors, who have decided --in Tim O'Reilly's words-- that invisibility is worse than infringement. A better title would be George Carlin's line: if you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 12/15/2004 01:47:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
