Re: Creative Work Law for the EU. We have the right to share!
- Ralf Schlatterbeck,
Thank you for your reply which I share also with the COMMUNIA network.
Your use of copyright highlights its absurdity. I start with that, then
write about the culture I seek, and finally, address your points.
I wrote my letter in the Public Domain for all to share freely as they
You selectively quoted from my letter without referencing the original
venue (Global Villages) and where to find it or acknowledging that it is
Public Domain. You included your reply. Then you copyrighted the
combined work under a license that explicitly (!) prevents derivatives.
And that means that I myself "may not alter, transform, or build upon
this work." I suppose that my reply here is building on your work and
even reformatting it with ">" signs. You allow me to "cite portions"
under "fair use". But didn't I have that right without your license?
Shouldn't I cite the whole thing? Haven't you, pragmatically, made me
think twice about your wishes? How have you allowed for more than
I take the liberty to ignore your ugly, petty license. I don't agree to
think of you as such a blind and petty person. What are you going to do
I appreciate your response, though, because at least you did respond.
And it's helping me think through the culture that I seek.
Understandably, there's a clash of cultures, of great spiritedness and
petty spiritedness, I suppose in all of us.
We can live as great spirits. We can be comfortable with absurdity. We
can live as vessels, as martyrs, as openings for the good heart.
We can live with a small heart. We can want the world to make sense.
We can want some space in that world, some rest, some room for
expectations. We can even be petty and dwell on tiny things.
The culture that I seek is a culture of independent thinkers, which is
to say, of the smallhearted, those who want the world to make sense, who
want little leaps of faith to suffice, who want the world to fit into
their beliefs. It is the "kingdom of heaven" where "what you believe is
what happens", where also, reality is fettered by belief. "Blessed are
the petty (the poor in spirit), for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
That's a kingdom where we might all be included. Are petty spirits
going to bring it about? Maybe we all do. Won't great spirits reach
out to and include petty spirits? For it is a kingdom of "heaven".
"What you find is what you love". The lost coin, the lost sheep, the
lost son are, when found, what delight great spirits.
Yet, also, won't petty spirits - won't the small hearted like myself -
won't we be "economical"? Won't we acknowledge and organize around
great spirits, invest ourselves in them, give to the givers, and reach
out from there? Indeed, wouldn't great spirits likewise be "economical"
so that our world might make sense to those for whom that matters?
Won't it become ambiguous, what is great and what is petty, but rather
the two will be in harmony, so that great spirit is evident in every
trivial matter? Even as that may require, at every step, small wounds
and bruises of every kind: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for the
sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Ralf, to address your points. You understand me:
* to want to force all creative work in the future to be "public domain"
* to make "public domain" mandatory for certain kinds of works means in
essence you are forcing a "share-alike" license to these works
* to claim that public domain licenses protect the freedom more that
licenses specifically designed for this
* the law I propose would remove choice -- and thus freedom
Ralf, I don't know if we can understand each other because we may be
looking at the same things in incompatible ways. I appeal to the
situation in earlier days, at least, as I understand it. Copyright is
such a late and strange concept yet so prevelant that it's hard for
people to think it's not universal. Public Domain is such a rare and
neglected concept that it's hard for people to imagine that it is
universal, even fundamental.
Traditionally, people invented and shared stories, songs, proverbs,
jokes. In our culture in Lithuania, they didn't want to be known as
"authors", but rather wanted their work to become part of this
tradition. This folklore was "Public Domain".
In antiquity, books were rare, and a great wealth. It was the moral
duty of those who had books to make faithful copies of them and share
with other centers so that they were not lost. Authors were recognized
(by norm, not law) so they could be held responsible as "authorities".
These books were "Public Domain".
Lewis Hyde writes in "The Gift":
"An essential part of any artist's labor is not creation so much as
invocation. Part of the work cannot be made, it must be received; and
we cannot have this gift except, perhaps, by supplication, by courting,
by creating within ourselves the "begging bowl" to which the gift is
Geniuses (like me and, I hope, all of us) draw from something greater.
We add our own personal style - and perhaps we can own that - but I
believe that whatever we give that transcends us is what we likewise
received. Copyright your style, as evident in your form, but works of
genius like the Gospel or Shakespeare or the U.S.Constitution have no
style to speak of, to copy or to mimic or to parody, because that would
be pointless. These works aren't made for money or for control. By the
nature of their genius they are "Public Domain".
Lewis Hyde writes in "The Gift":
"Whereas before [the 1500s] a man could fish in any stream and hunt in
any forest, now he found there were individuals who claimed to be owners
of these commons. The basis of land tenure had shifted. The medieval
serf had been almost the opposite of a property owner: the land had
owned him... Now men claimed to own the land and offered to rent it out
at a fee."
The land was once "Public Domain" and any exceptions were explicitly
fenced and that's still how we think of "property".
(If you find a coin on the ground, and there is nobody else to claim it,
you can take it. It was "Public Domain". Imagine if such coins were
considered "orphan works" and had to be left on the ground!)
Copyright wasn't relevant at all before mass production, which is to
say, printing. It started in Britain in 1710 as a government
intervention where there had been printing monopolies, but also, free
markets. Copyright was relevant for "popular" works (often trashy
literature) that had more than one edition (I think most works don't).
Copyright restricted publishers. These were very narrow restrictions.
Later copyright expanded to include any work that was registered in the
copyright office's registrar for a small fee. Copyright was for
exceptions. Anything else was "Public Domain".
Finally, copyright was expanded to include any work that had the
copyright sign and the year, such as: @ 1976. Copyright was still an
In all of these cases, the Public Domain was the default, and Copyright
was the exception which had to be fenced, marked, defended, justified,
retained accordingly. This is what I'm seeking! (Do you understand me?)
However, around this time, 1978, everything fundamentally changed. In
the US and the world, Copyright was declared the default, and Public
Domain was the exception. Any writing by any author was assumed to be
copyright. It was not even explained how an author might place their
work in the Public Domain (except by dying and waiting). It was assumed
that Copyright is natural and it would be inhuman for anybody to let
others use their work as they please, without restriction.
Given that context...
* Do I want to force all creative work in the future to be "public domain"?
Ralf, I ask you, What should we assume, by default, is the natural
desire of an author and the natural state of a creative work? Currenty,
the assumption is that authors want control over their works, they want
others to ask permission. My assumption is that the default is that
people want to share freely their creative works, they want to
contribute to a thriving Public Domain. Which assumption should the
laws reflect? The laws will "force" one way or the other. Right now
they are forcing me not to share freely. This is why I start with the
right to share.
* to make "public domain" mandatory for certain kinds of works means in
essence you are forcing a "share-alike" license to these works
Actually, not! Share-alike licenses don't allow for exceptions!
Whereas the Public Domain allows for all exceptions. You can combine
all kinds of material in a "Public Domain except as noted" work, and
that combination may then be further placed under all kinds of
licenses. The Public Domain is the lack of forcing (it is like a
vaccuum, not an ether, and knows no boundaries). Whereas Share-alike"
forces the overall work to be "Share-alike" and places everything in a
bottle, and claims to suck the vaccuum out of the bottle!). Share-alike
is poison to the Public Domain.
* to claim that public domain licenses protect the freedom more that
licenses specifically designed for this
I speak of the "Public Domain" as "the lack of licenses" and so, in my
understanding, there is no such thing as "public domain licenses".
(Even the Creative Commons avoids the term license and says "Public
I think of Copyright as a government intervention. Most cultures have
no sense of copyright, financial markets or even authorship. We have
natural rights, and as civic creatures, we also have civic rights.
Copyright is a civic right, based on our governments and societies, and
not a natural right. Whereas our right to share freely - to give and
receive gifts, even and especially without reciprocation - and to foster
such a culture - is a natural right.
Two people of different cultures can share freely a song even if they
don't understand each other. But they can't discuss copyright without a
huge artifice of social constructs. It disturbs me that Western
cultures impose this artifice (including Creative Commons) on the entire
It's not my priority to "protect freedom"!
In order to have freedom, I must be willing to have it unprotected!
Otherwise it is not freedom, but imposition. Free people must be
It's much better to live with many small vulnerabilities than with a few
large ones. A culture of the Public Domain, as I'm organizing with
Worknets, can and will be thriving when people care about authors wishes
and their works, not because they are forced to, but because they choose
to. Such a culture has many ways to do this, including education,
norms, incentives and laws that support them. I sketched below my
suggestions and invite us all to do so!
Currently, we live in a draconian anti-culture, where all works are
forced to enjoy the same protections, copyright laws are not enforced,
and people are made to be thieves and treated as thieves. This
anti-culture has the same dynamics as the Chicago ghetto. It's almost
impossible for a person to end up "a good citizen".
Instead, with my suggestions, we would have a culture where people
understand that most works contribute to a shared commons, but there may
be exceptions, where authors deliberately choose to protect their works
with Copyright, especially because the culture is too weak to protect
them of its own, and so these Copyrights should be respected
accordingly. The culture would discourage "pirates" and other violators.
It's noteworthy that so much of the "copyleft" movement focused on the
fact that "Mickey Mouse" may never enter the Public Domain. From my
point of view, given that the Walt Disney company has invested so much
in Mickey Mouse, why shouldn't they maintain Copyright indefinitely?
It's their mouse! Why would we want to "own" that culture?
I want to build a commons with my contemporaries, not people who are
dead. With COMMUNIA, we have the opportunity to give priority to the
Public Domain, and also, open up huge domains for culture. Don't we
want people be free - unhindered by permissions - to publish English
language books into their local languages? Or to print out-of-print
works which the publishers decline to print? Or to distribute web pages
offline just as Internet providers do online? These are all natural
activities which the artifice of Copyright shuts down.
Can I be more free if I have less government? Free people say "yes" to
the extent that they have a culture which respects their freedom. I
seek such a culture.
* the law I propose would remove choice -- and thus freedom
I suppose that every law might be critiqued in that way. Yet laws can
support choice by removing false choice.
Currently, there is no real protection for Copyright except for the
largest and most agressive corporations. The laws, norms and policies I
suggest would not keep you from using the license that you have. You
would have that same freedom but it would become more meaningful. The
default alternative would no longer be "copyright" but "Public Domain".
And so your deliberate choice would be much more real, legally and
morally and socially. I wouldn't ignore it: I would understand you to
mean that you don't want me to include your letter in mine, as I have.
Finally, I have used the term "creative work" broadly, and certainly, it
can be narrowed, as needed.
Ralf, Thank you for caring and replying. I encourage others to, as
well. We have a great opportunity with the COMMUNIA process.
+370 699 30003
Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:59:25AM +0300, Andrius Kulikauskas wrote:defined what
>> Please share your thoughts on the Public Domain. What would be good
>> policy for the European Union and the world? Your participation now is
>> important if you'd like to participate in our COMMUNIA meeting,
>> especially on June 28-30, 2010 in Torino, Italy. We have some travel
>> money to get together then!
>> Creativity is positive. There is no need for laws to restrict it, but
>> rather for laws to restrict those who might inhibit it, those who might
>> retard the evolution of society. Creative work law (historically known
>> as copyright law) is phrased and structured accordingly.
>> The joys of creative work are direct and thus a greater benefit than any
>> monetary profit. The best use of a work is informed by this joy more so
>> than any other incentive. Creative work law protects, first of all, the
>> interests and rights of those who wish to enjoy a work so that it is
>> Public Domain has Priority over Copyright
>> The European Union prepares and issues a directive that all member
>> countries pass laws and amend constitutions, as needed, so that for
>> creative works, the Public Domain has priority over Copyright.
>> Works are creative in that they transcend the will of the author. Works
>> may be partly creative, not entirely transcendent. Authors may restrict
>> the use of their work by Copyright only to the extent that their work is
>> NOT creative. The lack of creativity is given by the author's style as
>> evident in the form of the created work.
> Andrius, if I understand this correctly you want to force all creative
> work in the future to be "public domain" (I'm intentionally putting this
> use of the term public domain under quotes here). Leaves to be
> creative work is -- in my opinion this includes almost anything humans--------------------------
> can think of (see below).
> First to the notion of "public domain" you are using here: Public Domain
> currently means you may do anything with it -- including appropriating
> it, adding to it and releasing a closed non-public-domain version of the
> result. By making "public domain" mandatory for certain kinds of works
> means in essence you are forcing a "share-alike" license to these works.
> In some of our discussions I've never quite understood why you think
> public domain licenses protect the freedom more that licenses
> specifically designed for this -- now it seems you essentially want to
> force a global share-alike license on everything (see below for my
> interpretation of "creative work" -- it includes almost everything).
> We already have share-alike licenses for creative works:
> The Creative Commons Share-Alike license
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ does just that: Force
> somebody who adapts the work to use the same license. For free software
> we have an even older license, the GNU General Public License
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html which prevents people building on a
> work to deny the rights they got from the people they give the extended
> work to.
> For hosting-services the GPL is not enough: In GPL terms you are free to
> make local changes without releasing the software. Hosting is a grey
> zone, you can make local modifications to GPL software and host
> applications for other people using that software. So these people are
> bound to you because the can't change the provider unless they are
> willing to lose the additional features of your version of the program.
> We call that a vendor lock-in. The GNU Affero Public License
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html was designed to prevent this. I've
> written about that earlier on my blog in "Cloud computing, Vendor
> Lock-In and the Future" http://blog.runtux.com/2009/08/04/106/
> So what is creative work in your proposal? In my opinion software is
> creative work, making a hardware-design is creative work, writing an
> essay is creative work, making music is creative work -- and I think we
> may need slightly different rights for some of these. And most important
> I think that the author should be free to decide.
> The rights shouldn't be eternal, though and I'm opposed to the right of
> excluding others from the use of mere ideas (like in the patent system).
> I can think of several occasions where I want to put a non-public-domain
> license (in the old sense of public domain, not your new interpretation
> of share-alike) on some work I create -- note that I think this should
> be a matter of *choice*:
> - For an essay where I express my own opinion I don't want people to
> make modifications to it (and claim I've said it). Therefore I would
> put a license on that work that prevents derivative works.
> - Usually I'm releasing software under the GNU General Public License.
> So people can not deny the rights *they* got from me from somebody
> they give (a modified version of) the software to.
> - For Software like, e.g., a Wiki I don't want people to make local
> modifications and host the modified version for others, essentially
> creating a vendor lock-in. I would want a license that prevents that.
> - For library-software that I want lots of people to use -- even for
> close-source applications -- I'd want a license that permits that. We
> have the GNU Lesser Public License for that
> - For hardware we also want this sort of protection and I'm not aware
> that this has been fully solved yet.
> One problem here is that once you have contributions to your software or
> to other works it is *very* hard to later change the license (even make
> it more free than before). This *is* a problem (in the direction of more
> freedom -- in the direction of less freedom thats what you wanted in the
> first place). This is usually handled by making all contributors sign a
> contract that permits you to release the software under, e.g., a
> dual-license scheme or permit you to later release it under a different
> It is also a problem if there are different works you want
> to integrate which are under different licenses. I've written about that
> when I prepared a lecture for a technical college I'm teaching at:
> "Open Source Document Licensing" http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> So having just *one* license to say what you want should be the
> direction to go. Fortunately Wikipedia in the meantime has re-licensed
> its work under a CC-By-SA license: "Wikipedia + CC BY-SA = Free Culture
> Win!" http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15411
> So the situation currently is so complicated because it is about choice.
> I think such a law you propose would removes choice -- and thus freedom.
> I hereby put this email under a Creative Commons No-Derivative Works
> license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/
> This means that you are free to cite portions of the work for
> criticizing it (thats fair use) -- but you're not free to change it and
> attribute the changed text to me.
The Public Domain is key for our Worknets culture. Public Domain
content is copyright-free (like our letters) so that all can share and
reuse freely, without asking for permission.
Please share your thoughts on the Public Domain. What would be good
policy for the European Union and the world? Your participation now is
important if you'd like to participate in our COMMUNIA meeting,
especially on June 28-30, 2010 in Torino, Italy. We have some travel
money to get together then!
Minciu Sodas is a member of the European Union's thematic network
COMMUNIA for the Public Domain http://www.communia-project.eu We (and
all) have the opportunity to provide our ideas for what should be the
European Union's policy regarding the Public Domain. I encourage us to
write and will share our thoughts through the COMMUNIA mailing list and
at the Barcelona meeting on October 1-2, 2009.
I share below my own thoughts on the policy that I would like to see!
Of course, my letter is in the Public Domain.
Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@...
We Have the Right to Share
Currently, the laws of the European Union presume that any creative work
is necessarily protected by copyright and the author must explicitly
approve all uses. This conflicts with the wishes of people who want to
share creative work freely in the Public Domain so that all may rely on
their own best judgement to use it, transform it, incorporate it and
We, the people of the European Union, acknowledge a right to share, just
as we do the right to own. These two rights are related. The purpose of
ownership is stewardship. The steward of property is recognized as the
judge of how to apply that property so that it serves the best use of
all. The steward has the right to transfer their property, to allow some
or even all to apply their own best judgement. If we have the right to
own property, then we must also have the right to share it.
By acknowledging the right to own, we acknowledge the wisdom of the
society of all which acknowledges and defends such a right. Likewise, we
may entrust our creative works to that same wisdom.
Creative Work Law
Creativity is positive. There is no need for laws to restrict it, but
rather for laws to restrict those who might inhibit it, those who might
retard the evolution of society. Creative work law (historically known
as copyright law) is phrased and structured accordingly.
Our right to share is especially relevant for creative works from which
other works can be derived or copied. Such works are purposeful and
fruitful when they inspire other such works, when they are social.
Creative work law does not apply to secret works or private works, but
to social works. The purpose of creative work law is to encourage the
creation of fruitful works and social wealth, not fruitless works nor
private wealth. Creative work law is not meant to encourage the creation
of single works, but rather, to encourage the creation of all of their
derived works, and especially, the cultivation of a creative culture.
A culture is shaped by ethics and norms. Norms are implicit, but laws
are explicit. Laws may support norms, but cannot define them. Creative
work law is established to nurture a creative culture, including support
and regard for creators and creations. Creative work law succeeds by
defining a broad and thriving "grey zone" of "fair use".
The joys of creative work are direct and thus a greater benefit than any
monetary profit. The best use of a work is informed by this joy more so
than any other incentive. Creative work law protects, first of all, the
interests and rights of those who wish to enjoy a work so that it is
Creative work law honors and presumes people's desire to share. Terms
for the distribution of creative works presume that people will share
and provide positive incentives to support and engage such behavior or
they are void.
Creative work law does not favor those who break the law over those who
follow the law, nor those who encourage the breaking of the law over
those who encourage others to follow the law. Similarly, Terms of
Service do not favor those who ignore them or break them over those who
follow them. Any such laws and terms are excessive and void.
The State is the Champion of the Public Domain
If we don't know otherwise, do we presume that people want to share or
to own? We presume that people wish to allow reuse unless they make
evident otherwise. The right to share has priority over the right to own.
The European Union and its member states have the responsibility to
protect property. The state's protection of property used by a wider
group has priority over its protection of comparable property used by a
narrower group. The state's protection of property used by all (and
especially, the commons) has the highest priority.
The state's responsibility to protect property is greatest for that
which lacks a defender, protector, caretaker or steward. The state
promotes stewardship, including individual stewardship, but especially,
a culture of collective stewardship. The state is the champion and
steward for a thriving Public Domain.
The state reflects the will of all together to respect the rights of all
separately. The state accordingly presumes, implicitly, our shared will,
so that it might respect, explicitly, our distinct wills. The state
defines an expansive Public Domain so that deliberate individuals may
benefit from Copyright protection which is focused and effective.
Public Domain has Priority over Copyright
The European Union prepares and issues a directive that all member
countries pass laws and amend constitutions, as needed, so that for
creative works, the Public Domain has priority over Copyright.
Works are creative in that they transcend the will of the author. Works
may be partly creative, not entirely transcendent. Authors may restrict
the use of their work by Copyright only to the extent that their work is
NOT creative. The lack of creativity is given by the author's style as
evident in the form of the created work.
Works of God, nature and genius are absolutely creative. They transcend
style. Anyone may use such works in the Public Domain if they explicitly
regard them accordingly, free of style.
Works of and by governments are in the Public Domain, as are documents
of any institutions beholden to the public, the will of all together.
Copyright works must be marked as such, using the copyright sign along
with the year. Otherwise, they may be considered to be in the Public Domain.
Copyright works must include or be distributed along with a reference to
where can be found further information on the author of the work and the
owner of the copyright, the boundaries of the work, the works it derives
from, the scope of fair use, and how to contact the owner of the
copyright to request additional use of the work.
Works that derive from the Public Domain must make available, in the
Public Domain, any works that they build on. Otherwise, they themselves
may be used as if they were in the Public Domain, and ultimately, they
fall into the Public Domain.
Creative works may be explicitly placed in the Public Domain.
Creative works can be owned or managed only by human beings, not by
corporations or any other fictitious persons which by their nature are
incapable of creating them.
The Right to Change One's Mind
Our creativity is how we transcend ourselves. Our creative culture
depends on our completely voluntary participation and thus accomodates
any author who wishes, at any time, for any reason, to remove their work
from the Public Domain.
Commercial works may leverage Public Domain materials but need to be
prepared to negotiate with authors or stop making use of their works.
The author who changes their mind may inform and require any and all
owners of copies or derivatives of the work in question to negotiate
terms of ownership or to remove all traces of the work.
Such owners are not liable for past use of the work, but for future use
and distribution of the work, responding within a practical timeline.
Creative works, such as orphan works, with no apparent caretaker may be
presumed to belong to the Public Domain until the creator asserts otherwise.
Developing Norms and Regulations
The European Union supports and establishes institutions that develop
regulations and foster norms for a thriving Public Domain.
Absolute minimum interpretations of "fair use" are established for a
variety of practical situations, such as any publicly posted text that
is 140 characters or less.
Absolute maximal interpretations of "fair use" are likewise established.
"Fair use" is defined in the most liberal way unless the creative work
references it's own explanation of "fair use".
Authors are presumed to grant all requests for expansive "fair use".
Users who write to authors requesting expansive "fair use" may presume
their request has been granted until they receive a response otherwise.
The standard for "due diligence" in checking for authors and their
wishes is proportional to the value of the derived works in question.
Copyright owners of mass consumed works assume that users do abide by an
honor system and provide them with ways for making payments (or
micropayments) upon making copies or creating derivative works.
Penalties for abuse of copyright are of the same order of magnitude as
the claimant's actual losses and the defendant's gains.
Content generated in online venues (mailing lists, wikis, blogs,
comments) is Public Domain unless each item explicitly states otherwise.
Website Terms of service may not be used to limit the rights of authors
or users, whether Public Domain, Copyright or "fair use".
Any material made publicly accessible on the Internet, may be freely
copied and distributed further, in electronic, print or other versions,
without restriction. Distributors may charge for such distribution as
long as they do not exclude other distributors.
The terms "commercial use" and "non-commercial use" are clarified so
that "commercial use" refers simply to selling a creative work.
A procedure exists for querying publishers whether they intend to
reprint out-of-print works or, alternatively, whether they will allow
others to do so under standard terms.
A procedure exists for establishing the "authors' wishes" for works
(like Wikipedia) with no effective author. A procedure exists by which
such works can thereby be migrated from one license to another or the
No license may be designed to be incompatible with the Public Domain.
("Share alike" licenses must not conflict with the Public Domain.)
Separate laws address damages due to plagiarism and false claims to
The European Union and member states take an active approach to
fostering the Public Domain as central to public life.
Government funding standards and purchasing standards require that,
wherever possible, content (such as school textbooks) be in the Public
Government services, requirements, standards (as in education) may not
require use of particular software but most instead define formats for
which software can be created.
Governments purchase works so that they enter the Public Domain and/or
reward authors for works they've place in the Public Domain. This is the
principal support for the arts and sciences.
Governments may exercise "eminent domain" to purchase works at fair
market prices and place them in the Public Domain.
Governments prepare registries of Public Domain works built by
volunteers and reward participants, but especially as a way of
channeling economic stimulus monies.
Government funds used to bail out private companies such as banks,
automobile manufacturers, etc. are first used to increase transparency
and openness and the public wealth, for example, making open source the
design of cars.
Governments champion worldwide the free flow of ideas and content just
as they champion the free flow of trade.
Government or insurers allows for insurance for those who use and reuse
creative works to cover their transgressions.
Anonymous works such as grafitti are defined as folklore in the Public
In order to encourage an economy around the Public Domain, and voluntary
work, in general: Money paid, in advance, for work to be done in the
Public Domain, is not considered work for pay, thus free of any related
taxes, Social Security payments, and other obligations. The payer of the
money may consider such payments as a business expense if they report
the amounts and pay a proportional tax.
Given that "wealth is relationships", that wealth is generated by
including people, and that contributing to the Public Domain and
"working for free" filter in people who share and invest in the commons:
The European Union develops a distribution mechanism to stimulate the
growth of underdeveloped areas, such as the countryside, by issuing
vouchers (say, 1000 euros each) to those who "work for free" and
participate in institutions, including government, business, academia,
to spend freely on those likewise from the target group. Such a system
will not need reporting or monitoring.
The European Union gives priority to local cultures so that they are not
dominated by international cultures. A distinction is to be made between
works in international languages (such as English) and local languages
(such as Lithuanian) as well as languages that are not official
languages of the European Union (such as African languages). Works
published in the European Union in international languages may, without
restriction or special permission, be translated into the Public Domain
in local languages and non-European languages.
Creativity is a basic human trait and activity. The European Union
sponsors dialogue to clarify the theoretical foundations of creative
work and the practical consequences.
A general theory may consider that a creative work is deliberate and not
accidental. Deliberateness may be defined as the application of distinct
parsers, for example, two for fair use, and three for a fully creative
work. See "The Algebra of Copyright" by Andrius Kulikauskas,
A general theory may define the nature of style. Copyright protection
applies only to form, and in particular, only to style. Derived works
for which the style of incorporated works is altered beyond recognition
do not violate copyright.
Each letter sent to firstname.lastname@example.org enters the PUBLIC
DOMAIN whenever it does not state otherwise.
Yahoo! Groups Links