[okfn-discuss] video metadata and open license stance

Fri Oct 20 14:38:04 UTC 2006

<quote who="Saul Albert" date="Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 08:51:28AM +0100">
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:27:03AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > > In this case I think we should separate:
> > > 
> > > a) having a license field
> > > b) having a license field which defaults to something other than full 
> > > 'all rights reserved' copyright
> > 
> > The only people who can give away authors' exclusive rights are the
> > authors' themselves. Designing software so that it defaults to giving
> > away people's exclusive rights risks being selectively non-binding at
> > best and actionable at worst. My sense is that software designers
> > can't safely default to anything other than the status quo.
> 
> I understand your trepidation at thrusting a powerful tool (like
> copyleft metadata) into the hands of any old shmo who blunders into your
> software...

Perhaps I wasn't making my position clear.

I have no trepidation in giving people access to the machinery of
copyleft metadata. I would love to see video software with a "select
license" box in the save dialog box with a list of licensing options
that includes copyleft licensing. I think this would be a very good
thing.

First and foremost, my concern is with making the license field
*mandatory* because I believe that people will end up selecting a
necessarily status quo default.

Secondarily, I think we need to be realistic about the fact the effect
of making this infrastructure available will, in all likelihood,
increase the amount of explicitly non-freely licensed works. CC has
demonstrated that when asked to pick from a list of licenses, people
tend toward the most restrictive choices available. I think this
trade-off may be worth it, but see no tactical or ethical reason to
make the inclusion of *any* licensing metadata required.

> it could systematically muddy the waters, but we're talking about a
> quite specific community of interest with the transmission network -
> and why shouldn't they develop tools that 'strongly encourage' or
> educate their already-ideologically convinced users to use copyleft
> devices.

I believe that if education happens through a mandatory field in save
dialog box, people will tend to make uninformed decisions.

> Software publishes foist all kinds of ridiculous agreements on their
> users, many of which put them into untenable and unenforceable
> positions, and nearly everyone just clicks 'OK'. I don't think
> commercial vendors respect the status quo in this context, or what
> would be the need for all that legalese gibberish?

I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate with this
example. The behavior of most publishers has created the problems
we're trying to solve. Are you suggesting that we should emulate their
mistakes?

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako at atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS