its interesting though about the whole free-culture outside the US, it seems that free-culture is looking to be funded via the state. well at least all the admin operations, so does that mean that mechanism behind free-culture is fed through the government.
so the government build more trains for the first class passengers. i had hoped that free-culutre also means the right to do as you choose with what you create. yet being able to only license using the CC licenese and be a member of a rights organization outside the us does not make sense. it seems that ideas for artists might also move on the artists http://www.owntems.org the universal blanket license for eternity is sometimes to much for the artists. how about the universal blanket license for the local pub, that the artists can turn on and off when he feels like it?
Creative Commons might at least give merit to the other ideas, or would that be competition in a monopoly circumstance?
proove me wrong and put project applications in place via some of the CC affiliates outside of the US that are funded through the state to get moving on these kind of ideas? maybe i have it wrong though, another good pipe dream.
free-culture= free to do what you want with what you create.
not free to make it free only under a creative commons license, yet its interesting. i’m not worried about the CC license, yet maybe this article above shows an argument that might get thrown at you guys from time to time. how can you have a summit for free culutre within a blanket license and no definiftion within the law of what is non-commercial and what is commercial?
anyway i find it intersting, cause in all the time i have been using these CC liceses, i still can’t get free legal advice. both sides seem the same as they have a political agenda, ultimatley the artists uses the tools that are available to her/him to get what they made heard. So i have to wonder if CC within the blanket admin of APRA is such a good thing. Is it not unfair to other licenes that might want to exist?