Rob Myers observes that Dave Winer is wondering if there’s any support for authors against those who infringe their Creative Commons licences.
This should remind us why Free Culture should be about principles (ethics) rather than licences.
Licences still persuade people of their rightful privilege to authorial supremacy in arbitrating what may be done with their work.
Let’s try then to persuade the author away from the delusion they’re king with readers to rule, rather than a parent whose procreated progeny, post-publication, post-privacy, become public property.
An author’s castle and only kingdom is their private home, over and within which they are monarch and absolute dictator concerning their work (subject to others’ right to life).
In the public domain the public hold sway, and their predominant concern is not, as many would pretend, unbridled liberty, but its bridle of truth:
Truth in authorship.
Truth in attribution.
Truth in representation.
Truth in identification.
Truth in integrity.
So, if Dave Winer creates a spec and uniquely names it ‘RSS’, then no-one else (without authorisation) may create a different or derivative spec and name it ‘RSS’ (in an attempt to assert their version as superior), since to do so would impair truth.
This does not depend upon any privilege of commercial monopoly over reproduction, nor any licence.
However, things remain flexible. As with trademarks, the name of a work can become a descriptor for the use of the work or the class of similar works. We may hoover the carpet (and buy a new hoover – made by Dyson), or xerox some leaflets with a Panasonic copier. The use of a work’s name beyond its use as a name for the work does not necessarily impair truth in naming.
RSS as ‘Really Simple Syndication’ also names the entire field of RSS-like protocols and standards.
It is likely to be understood that there may be a wide variety of RSS specifications, and that anyone may create an RSS spec without implicitly pretending it is Dave’s original, nor that it has Dave’s authorisation, nor that it is necessarily the definitive RSS spec (unless it enjoys predominance by dint of popularity).
Simply because an author inspires a new field that inherits the name of their primary work, doesn’t mean they should have any control over the field or the re-use of their work’s name for the field and classification of similar works.
Truth is not a privilege of the author to assert or waive as and when they fancy.
Only patent, copyright, and the licences that moderate them, create these delusions of authorial grandeur.
Great post, Crosbie. This persistent idea that people should get to forever control their (published) intellectual work is very hard to overcome. At a family event recently, I saw this in action — it’s just assumed that an author should have this right. I find it hard to effectively argue against that complete acceptance of the status quo.
Comment #000103 at
2007-07-05 11:24
by
Rob Myers observes that Dave Winer is wondering if there’s any support for authors against those who infringe their Creative Commons licences.
This should remind us why Free Culture should be about principles (ethics) rather than licences.
Licences still persuade people of their rightful privilege to authorial supremacy in arbitrating what may be done with their work.
Let’s try then to persuade the author away from the delusion they’re king with readers to rule, rather than a parent whose procreated progeny, post-publication, post-privacy, become public property.
An author’s castle and only kingdom is their private home, over and within which they are monarch and absolute dictator concerning their work (subject to others’ right to life).
In the public domain the public hold sway, and their predominant concern is not, as many would pretend, unbridled liberty, but its bridle of truth:
Truth in authorship.
Truth in attribution.
Truth in representation.
Truth in identification.
Truth in integrity.
So, if Dave Winer creates a spec and uniquely names it ‘RSS’, then no-one else (without authorisation) may create a different or derivative spec and name it ‘RSS’ (in an attempt to assert their version as superior), since to do so would impair truth.
This does not depend upon any privilege of commercial monopoly over reproduction, nor any licence.
However, things remain flexible. As with trademarks, the name of a work can become a descriptor for the use of the work or the class of similar works. We may hoover the carpet (and buy a new hoover – made by Dyson), or xerox some leaflets with a Panasonic copier. The use of a work’s name beyond its use as a name for the work does not necessarily impair truth in naming.
RSS as ‘Really Simple Syndication’ also names the entire field of RSS-like protocols and standards.
It is likely to be understood that there may be a wide variety of RSS specifications, and that anyone may create an RSS spec without implicitly pretending it is Dave’s original, nor that it has Dave’s authorisation, nor that it is necessarily the definitive RSS spec (unless it enjoys predominance by dint of popularity).
Simply because an author inspires a new field that inherits the name of their primary work, doesn’t mean they should have any control over the field or the re-use of their work’s name for the field and classification of similar works.
Truth is not a privilege of the author to assert or waive as and when they fancy.
Only patent, copyright, and the licences that moderate them, create these delusions of authorial grandeur.