I’m not one to kiss ass or blubber on about how wonderful anything is, but Creative Commons appears to be one of the greatest things ever. I am of the opinion that anything posted on the internet should be at least shareable and at best modifiable (not everyone may want their work modified and that’s ok too) but obviously people would have concerns about others potentially profiting from their work or otherwise not crediting them with having created it.
Creative Commons allows for all the sharing and remixing that makes the Internet awesome in a legal and safe environment. Considering how the internet has evolved along with technology to allow faster speeds and effectively more types of creative work (video and even images were nigh impossible on 256K dial-up connections), people expect to see more than just text. As a writer who is incapable of producing enough (if any) images and videos to accompany my written works, I appreciate the existence of sites like Flickr, which is able to exist with Creative Commons’ flexible protection. Using other people’s images, I can keep my content fresh with visual assistance and the creators of the images can be credited if they want.
Another prime example of the immense benefit of relaxed copyrights is the amazing musical remixes that people produce and upload. I particularly enjoy dubstep versions and even more, chillstep ones. Granted, most of these remixes are of fully copyrighted music, but in a CC-filled future, they could be produced legally. Granted, the policing of uploading such productions on sites like Youtube is basically non-existent (so long as no one’s making money who shouldn’t be), but if such things could be made lawful, the world would improve in general. Otherwise, copyright will be seen as ignorable laws that one need not obey. Then, where will we draw the line? What other laws are ignorable? Do we need to obey any of them? Chaos and lawlessness would reign in physical prowess-dominated world of violent anarchy.
All I have to say about the concept of Intellectual Property, is “Great, yeah. Protect people’s mind babies.” But I tend to agree with copyleftists, including this opinion on the term “Intellectual Property” taken from the Wikipedia page on it:
“Lawrence Lessig, along with many other copyleft and free software activists, have criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original).”
I’ve chosen to use an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License from Creative Commons. The reasons are two: if I’m going to share my work, any modifiers are going to share their modifications in the same spirit, and if anyone is going to profit from it, it’s going to be me. It’s also international (unported) because we need to create a global community, not just within our own country. Otherwise, how are we ever going to get to space? Like, way out into space. Or communicate with aliens. If we can’t get along with ourselves, how are we going to handle aliens? We will be fighting among ourselves over the best way to fight the aliens (the option of befriending them not occurring to us), who, with their ability to travel to our planet and similarly advanced weapons, would eat us alive. Perhaps literally.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.