Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [decentralization] Creative Commons warrantees and emergent networks

Expand Messages
  • Mike Linksvayer
    ... The GPL only has a disclaimer of warranty for fitness of purpose and the like. CC licenses have a similar disclaimer. The GPL doesn t mention warranty or
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 12:54:29PM -0500, Lucas Gonze wrote:
      > The open question in my mind is when the CC-style warrantee is better
      > for the network than the GPL-style warrantee, and which would have a
      > more positive effect on content networks.

      The GPL only has a disclaimer of warranty for fitness of purpose and the
      like. CC licenses have a similar disclaimer. The GPL doesn't mention
      warranty or disclaimer of warranty for rights. The CC licenses do.

      I doubt either sort of warranty has much influence on the actions
      of content distributors and [re]creators. Some sort of third-party
      verified warranty might reassure those who are rich enough targets
      to care and would otherwise seek legal help even in the presence
      of a free or CC license (just the GPL or a CC notice looks pretty
      good to anyone else).

      I think you were also making a far broader point concerning whether
      a network is damaged more if individual nodes are heavily damaged
      or damage is spread around a subgraph -- no idea, and feels like it
      needs more definition.

      On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:18:47PM -0500, Lucas Gonze wrote:
      > I'm very queasy about the CC warrantee, maybe even enough to fork the
      > license for the sake of rewriting the warrantee.

      Many people don't like the warranty. I notice you recently added
      a comment to <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3681>, a blog
      entry about the issue. Warranties in all likelyhood will be optional
      in some form in v2 of the CC licenses.

      --
      Mike Linksvayer
      http://gondwanaland.com/ml/
    • Lucas Gonze
      There are several threads here. One is to about observing a pattern where damage in emergent networks can be more or less localized for a variety of reasons,
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        There are several threads here. One is to about observing a pattern
        where damage in emergent networks can be more or less localized for a
        variety of reasons, including legal. Another is about the Creative
        Commons warrantee, which may affect the degree to which damage is
        localized. Another is about whether the CC warrantee is good or bad.

        There's another, less visible, theme, which is *all* effects of CC
        licensing on emergent networks: CC-tagged resources always have
        metadata, and that should make them more useful.

        - Lucas


        On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 20:13 America/New_York, Mike Linksvayer
        wrote:
        > I think you were also making a far broader point concerning whether
        > a network is damaged more if individual nodes are heavily damaged
        > or damage is spread around a subgraph -- no idea, and feels like it
        > needs more definition.

        > Many people don't like the warranty. I notice you recently added
        > a comment to <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3681>, a blog
        > entry about the issue. Warranties in all likelyhood will be optional
        > in some form in v2 of the CC licenses.
      • Scott Raymond
        Steve Gillmor: BitTorrent and RSS Create Disruptive Revolution http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1413403,00.asp Gillmor proposes using BT to transport RSS
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 16, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Steve Gillmor: "BitTorrent and RSS Create Disruptive Revolution"
          http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1413403,00.asp

          Gillmor proposes using BT to transport RSS files, in order to reduce
          bandwidth costs for extremely popular RSS files. A fine idea, except
          that BT trackers incur such overhead that it's a terrible protocol for
          distributing such small files.

          As I see it, the *real* potential of combining BT and RSS is in the
          reverse: use RSS to publish .torrent URLs. Configure your news
          aggregator to pass all new .torrents to the BT client, and you've got
          yourself a media aggregator that uses open standards, plays well with
          the existing tools, and is easy on the content provider's servers.

          That combination allows indie media producers (audioblogs, videoblogs,
          what have you) to reach a mass audience in a scaleable way, without
          crippling bandwidth costs. And, it allows media consumers to subscribe
          to feeds from trusted sources -- whether official or unofficial, mass
          audience or niche -- instead of hunting for the .torrent of the latest
          Alias episode (or whatever). A decentralized TiVo "season pass".

          http://scottraymond.net/archive.php?id=4745#4745


          Scott Raymond
        • Julian Bond
          ... This can be done right now and I believe someone is working on an RSS feed of .torrents. The problem I think is the location of all the parts. BitTorrent
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 17, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Scott Raymond <sco@...> wrote:
            >As I see it, the *real* potential of combining BT and RSS is in the
            >reverse: use RSS to publish .torrent URLs. Configure your news
            >aggregator to pass all new .torrents to the BT client, and you've got
            >yourself a media aggregator that uses open standards, plays well with
            >the existing tools, and is easy on the content provider's servers.

            This can be done right now and I believe someone is working on an RSS
            feed of .torrents.

            The problem I think is the location of all the parts. BitTorrent has a
            server component and doesn't play well with NAT. In theory desktop
            aggregators could build the protocol into their code. This would be good
            because it would mean that client BT code would stay running and serve
            as an additional source while using background processing to do the
            downloads. But it's bad because they are probably behind NAT and
            probably can't act as a tracking server.

            --
            Julian Bond Email&MSM: julian.bond@...
            Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/
            Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
            M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
          • Wes Felter
            ... If you have a Web site/RSS feed, it s served by a centralized server. So you just need to get a BT tracker onto that server. (Are you listening, Six Apart
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 17, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              On Dec 17, 2003, at 2:18 AM, Julian Bond wrote:

              > Scott Raymond <sco@...> wrote:
              >> As I see it, the *real* potential of combining BT and RSS is in the
              >> reverse: use RSS to publish .torrent URLs. Configure your news
              >> aggregator to pass all new .torrents to the BT client, and you've got
              >> yourself a media aggregator that uses open standards, plays well with
              >> the existing tools, and is easy on the content provider's servers.
              >
              > This can be done right now and I believe someone is working on an RSS
              > feed of .torrents.
              >
              > The problem I think is the location of all the parts. BitTorrent has a
              > server component and doesn't play well with NAT. In theory desktop
              > aggregators could build the protocol into their code. This would be
              > good
              > because it would mean that client BT code would stay running and serve
              > as an additional source while using background processing to do the
              > downloads. But it's bad because they are probably behind NAT and
              > probably can't act as a tracking server.

              If you have a Web site/RSS feed, it's served by a centralized server.
              So you just need to get a BT tracker onto that server. (Are you
              listening, Six Apart and UserLand?)

              Wes Felter - wesley@... - http://felter.org/wesley/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.