Creative Commons launch.

Creative Commons press release. “People want to bridge the public domain with the realm of private copyrights,” said Stanford Law Professor and Creative Commons Chairman Lawrence Lessig.

This morning Creative Commons opened up a formerly private part of their site containing enumerations of the different licenses they support. It’s very simple. A document, a weblog, a RSS file, a PDF or whatever, can specify which license applies. On the CC site, they tell you how to do it with RDF, but I’m interested in a solution that can be used in RSS 2.0 files, so we can in turn add a user interface to Rado and Manila (and others can do it for other authoring tools) that tie into the CC system. I totally support the idea of lawyers helping creative people instead of controlling us, but I can’t convert everything I do to RDF to show my support. Tonight is their launch. I’m going to it. If we can get a namespace defined and vetted today, I can announce our support tonight.So here’s the RFC. Have a read, and post comments on the discussion group or send via email. Thanks.

RFC: creativeCommons RSS Module. “A RSS module that adds an element at the or level that specifies which Creative Commons license applies.”

[Scripting News]

John Markoff writes about military efforts to restrict unlicensed wireless use: The US military operates radar in the 5 GHz range, the same used by 802.11a, that they’re leery of talking much about. The 5 GHz range was considered mostly open space, and colleagues at the 802.11 Planet conference pointed out to me on a few occasions that the middle part of 5 GHz, currently not available for 802.11a, is used for overseas radar by the US, not domestic.

[80211b News]

Creative Commons launches today!

Creative Commons launches today!

Creative Commons machine-readable licenses will be available to the public free of charge from today. The release will take place at an early-evening reception in San Francisco which includes a chat and screening by DJ Spooky, That Subliminal Kid (NYC); a multimedia jam by People Like Us (London); and an address by Lawrence Lessig, Chairman of Creative Commons. Learn creative ways to distribute your works and find pointers to all sorts of licensed content you can use right away. It’s at the SomArts Cultural Center, 934 Brannan Street. Wish I was there.

At last — some real insight into file-sharing

At last — some real insight into file-sharing

Tim O’Reilly has written a terrific essay on the reality of file-sharing. Among other things, it’s a reminder of the importance of not letting the opposition get control of language — e.g. the way the copyright thugs seek to brand everyone who downloads a music file as a ‘pirate’. Piracy is something quite different — the wholesale copying of copyrighted material and its onward sale for profit. Tim structures his essay in terms of a number of ‘lessons’:

Lesson 1: Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy.
Lesson 2: Piracy is progressive taxation
Lesson 3: Customers want to do the right thing, if they can.
Lesson 4: Shoplifting is a bigger threat than piracy.
Lesson 5: File sharing networks don’t threaten book, music, or film publishing. They threaten existing publishers.
Lesson 6: “Free” is eventually replaced by a higher-quality paid service.
Lesson 7: There’s more than one way to do it.

Online shopping takes off in the UK

Online shopping takes off in the UK

According to this BBC Online story, UK online shoppers went on a record spree last month. The data comes from a survey by a market research firm which found that “sales broke through the £1bn mark last month, and have nearly doubled over the past year.

The growth in internet shopping is running about 15 times faster than that of general retail sales, the survey found.

IMRG also said that online shopping in the UK was growing three times faster than in the US.

“This high growth confirms that UK consumers at large are getting very confident with online purchasing,” said Jaap Favier, research director at Forrester Research, which carried out the survey.”

The Gutnick decision

The Gutnick decision

Thoughtful essay by Glenn Harlan Reynolds of the University of Tennessee on the Australian High Court decision to allow an Australian citizen to sue Dow Jones for defamation — in Victoria (where he lives) rather than in New Jersey (where the Dow Jones servers are located). Reynolds starts with a lovely historical analogy:

“IN the 1950s, before space travel was a reality, scholars worried about whether orbiting the Earth would even be legal. Under the law as it existed at that time, each nation’s sovereignty extended usque ad coelum – literally “to the heavens”.

Each nation’s territory thus consisted of a wedge beginning at the Earth’s core and continuing infinitely upward and outward.

This posed a number of absurdities, but the greatest difficulty was to orbiting spacecraft. Flying over a nation’s territory without permission was illegal, perhaps even an act of war. But although aircraft could change course to avoid passing over countries who desired to bar their way, spacecraft – their orbital paths fixed by the laws of physics – could not. If any country beneath them (which might mean any country in the world, depending on the inclination of their orbit) objected, it didn’t matter that everyone else agreed.

People worried about this at some length, but after the launch of Sputnik the Soviets and the US, soon followed by the other nations of the world, agreed that parochial concerns should not stand in the way of a promised worldwide communications revolution. Spacecraft in orbit were thus regarded as beyond the reach of earthbound law, and subject only to international space law and the law of the launching state, not that of the nations that they happened to pass over. The benefit, of course, was an explosion of satellite-based communications that was a boon for the entire world, and especially for previously isolated nations.

Now another new technology – the internet – faces a similar problem. In the case of Dow Jones and Company v. Gutnick, the High Court of Australia, yesterday ruled that anyone who publishes on the internet should be liable to be sued in any country in which an individual believes that he or she has been defamed by that publication. This is so, even though the High Court admits that, much as spacecraft cannot control their orbits: “The nature of the web makes it impossible to ensure with complete effectiveness the isolation of any geographic area on the Earth’s surface from access to a particular website.”…

More on this here and here.