It is cool that CCL allow copyright owner to choose the scope of using her copyrighted digital contents. It may be helpful to reduce the risk of making contents users the potential copyright infringer with the traditional gross copyright system on the Internet. Generally, it seems to be sure that CCL may contribute more open and well-regulated web environment and better opportunities both for contents providers and contents users.
However, what a many types in CCL! The more types of CCL may be good for contents developer by accommodating to their various specific needs. But, the complex variety may deter the understanding of the usual lay persons and lower the practical effectiveness of the well-designed regulation.
One example. In Korea, one of the IT powerhouses in the world, quite a many web users uses the “copyright” or “CCL” marks on contents in the wrong way. Those who misunderstanding the proper usage attach those marks without any hesitation as they do with “emoticon.” It is not difficult to find blogs where the copied newspaper articles are accompanied with the “CCL” mark. (Despite the blogger does not have any little right over the articles…)
The issue is how to narrow the gap between ideal and reality.
The following article comments on bloggers and CCL.
http://icommons.org/articles/why-bloggers-should-use-creative-commons-licences
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment