ToT Comments - Revision history

CCID-tvol: Reverted edits by Ahlabayt (talk) to last revision by Lucychili

2014-04-08T23:14:13Z

Reverted edits by Ahlabayt (talk) to last revision by Lucychili

Ahlabayt: ahlabayt for real estate marketing

2010-07-18T20:33:41Z

ahlabayt for real estate marketing

Ahlabayt: www.ahlabayt.com

2010-07-18T20:32:48Z

www.ahlabayt.com

Ahlabayt: ahlabayt for real estate marketing

2010-07-18T20:32:07Z

ahlabayt for real estate marketing

Lucychili: /* Legal Issues */

2007-01-03T12:08:32Z

‎Legal Issues

Miakgarlick: /* Legal Issues */

2007-01-03T00:54:45Z

‎Legal Issues

Miakgarlick: /* Legal Issues */

2007-01-03T00:54:28Z

‎Legal Issues

Lucychili: /* Legal Issues */

2006-12-30T13:18:30Z

‎Legal Issues

Nathan Yergler at 18:13, 21 December 2006

2006-12-21T18:13:38Z

Miakgarlick: /* Text Issues= */

2006-12-21T16:31:10Z

‎Text Issues=

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the *BETA* Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/.
-ahlabayt for real estate emarketing
+==Functionality==
-ahlabayt for
-egyptian Real Estate
 ==Text Issues==
-ahlabayt for real estate emarketing
+Hi Mia
-ahlabayt for
+Thanks for the response. I am sure the project is intended for the benefit of the people you suggest but I feel it is a sad direction to take CC in. It is basically trying to unscramble an egg. If I base a project on a specific piece of information or technology because it has an open licence, and it is important to me that future people will be able to interact with the information, technology and derivatives freely, then I do not see how rescinding the openness once people have created interacting information, technology, and community can be anything but destructive. It is creative licensing, it is not in the spirit of the word 'commons'. I am very disappointed to see a group which describes itself as being interested in free culture and commons encourage this kind of transient openness. This time the window of openness is 35 years. The DMCA/EUCD is being exported around the world making access to information more restrictive and conditional. If the CC team promotes this 'feature' of copyright law you can be sure that the length of time will be reduced and the allowances for derivative works will be as easily rescinded as the overall transfer.  I'm sorry but I cannot see how this contributes towards a 'creative commons'. Surely there is something promoting an enduring commons that the CC can spend its efforts towards?

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 Arab Real Estate
 www.ahlabayt.com
 ==Text Issues==

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ==Text Issues==
---Hey there - thanks much for your comments.  Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected.  Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007
+ahlabayt for real estate emarketing
+ahlabayt for
-Hi Mia
+egyptian Real Estate
-Thanks for the response. I am sure the project is intended for the benefit of the people you suggest but I feel it is a sad direction to take CC in. It is basically trying to unscramble an egg. If I base a project on a specific piece of information or technology because it has an open licence, and it is important to me that future people will be able to interact with the information, technology and derivatives freely, then I do not see how rescinding the openness once people have created interacting information, technology, and community can be anything but destructive. It is creative licensing, it is not in the spirit of the word 'commons'. I am very disappointed to see a group which describes itself as being interested in free culture and commons encourage this kind of transient openness. This time the window of openness is 35 years. The DMCA/EUCD is being exported around the world making access to information more restrictive and conditional. If the CC team promotes this 'feature' of copyright law you can be sure that the length of time will be reduced and the allowances for derivative works will be as easily rescinded as the overall transfer.  I'm sorry but I cannot see how this contributes towards a 'creative commons'. Surely there is something promoting an enduring commons that the CC can spend its efforts towards?
+Saudi Arabia Real Estate

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 18 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the BETA Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/.		This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the BETA Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/.
−
−	~~==Useability==~~


		+	ahlabayt for real estate emarketing
		+	ahlabayt for
		+	egyptian Real Estate
		+	Saudi Arabia Real Estate
		+	Arab Real Estate
		+	www.ahlabayt.com

	==Functionality==		==Functionality==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:08, 3 January 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes?		So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes?

		+	--Hey there - thanks much for your comments. Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected. Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007

−	~~--Hey there - thanks much~~ for ~~your comments~~. ~~Actually~~, as ~~we explain more~~ in this ~~FAQ http://labs~~.~~creativecommons~~.~~org~~/~~termination/faq~~.~~php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated,~~ derivative works will be ~~unaffected~~. ~~Mia Garlick,~~ CC ~~GC, Jan. 2, 2007~~	+	Hi Mia
		+	Thanks for the response. I am sure the project is intended for the benefit of the people you suggest but I feel it is a sad direction to take CC in. It is basically trying to unscramble an egg. If I base a project on a specific piece of information or technology because it has an open licence, and it is important to me that future people will be able to interact with the information, technology and derivatives freely, then I do not see how rescinding the openness once people have created interacting information, technology, and community can be anything but destructive. It is creative licensing, it is not in the spirit of the word 'commons'. I am very disappointed to see a group which describes itself as being interested in free culture and commons encourage this kind of transient openness. This time the window of openness is 35 years. The DMCA/EUCD is being exported around the world making access to information more restrictive and conditional. If the CC team promotes this 'feature' of copyright law you can be sure that the length of time will be reduced and the allowances for derivative works will be as easily rescinded as the overall transfer. I'm sorry but I cannot see how this contributes towards a 'creative commons'. Surely there is something promoting an enduring commons that the CC can spend its efforts towards?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 3 January 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:


−	Hey there - thanks much for your comments. Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected. Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007	+	--Hey there - thanks much for your comments. Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected. Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 3 January 2007
Line 13:		Line 13:
	==Legal Issues==		==Legal Issues==
	So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes?		So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes?
		+
		+
		+	Hey there - thanks much for your comments. Actually, as we explain more in this FAQ http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/faq.php#So.2C_I_get_all_of_my_rights_back.3F - even if a license is successfully terminated, derivative works will be unaffected. Mia Garlick, CC GC, Jan. 2, 2007

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:18, 30 December 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:

	==Legal Issues==		==Legal Issues==
		+	So this would mean that something licensed with a creative commons share alike licence that permitted derivatives could make all derivative works illegal after the fact because the Author has rescinded the licence further down the track. If the Creative Commons group is implementing tools to make it impossible to trust that a derivative work can be based on a Share Alike Licence this does not build confidence. As far as I can see promoting this kind of transient commons will make it more like a follow spot where you have to trash derivative works as the licences become unsafe? Surely the work of the commons crew should be to demonstrate the problem this poses to derivative works and the credibility of shared licences rather than to make a tool for undermining the commons? A collaborative commons is your end goal yes?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 21 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the BETA Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://~~lab~~.creativecommons.org/termination/.	+	This page is designed to collect comments and feedback on the BETA Returning Author's Rights: Termination of Transfer tool that is available for testing on ccLabs http://labs.creativecommons.org/termination/.

	==Useability==		==Useability==

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 21 December 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:


−	==Text Issues===	+	==Text Issues==
−
−

	==Legal Issues==		==Legal Issues==