Creative Commons Australia
14 Nov 2004I’m gratified to see an internationalisation work in progress for Creative Commons licensing schemes, specifically, the production of a document for here, in Australia (for obvious reasons, I have something of a vested interest in the integrity of this licence in my place of residence!). If only for reasons of correct domestic spelling, it’s enjoyable to read the Australian version over foreign (typically, United States) versions of the document!
Call me a language bigot if you will, but first consider the amount of Internet content which exists in Americani[s/z]ed form, then get back to me! Apologies if anyone takes offense at this, but I much prefer familiar, established, and generally accepted as correct (outside of the United States) spelling (and, to a lesser extent, grammar) over that offered by “globally accessible” content which is, in fact, geared towards one market only — the “global” thing being a pretense at best.
No, I haven’t completely missed the significance of this licence port. I understand that there are perfectly valid legal reasons which necessitate the development of this — I just lack an adequate understanding of the nuances of language which, apparently, may constitute loop-holes in the ludicrous thing which is our legal system. Want to accuse the US of being worse? Okay, that’s true — but don’t forget the fact that we’re the second most lawsuit-happy country on the planet.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this licence (to a completely uninformed, un-lawyer (which, incidentally, replaces “attorney” in this draft) person, at least) is the change in terminology with regard to copyright law. A standing sore-point between myself and Australian copyright law is the lack of “Fair Use” clause — if I buy a record, it’s illegal for me to duplicate that, even for personal use. Foreign software licences often make provision for backup, but unless that is explicit, I don’t believe Australian copyright law offers such a provision. As always, it’s more than probable that I’m wrong.
But yes. This is interesting, because, being a copy-left licence, it completely flaunts any understated “rights” of fair use in Australian copyright law. I love it!
Just for the record, this website is licenced under a Creative Commons Deed Attribution-Non-Commercial 2.0 licence. At this stage, that is obviously based upon the US (International?) version, however the Australian version is in progress, and I look forward to being able to replace (or at least augment) the existing licence with one more applicable to the majority of my audience (as I write this, well over 70%).
Please please please let me know if I’m amazingly wrong in any of this. Even if I’m just a little bit wrong. Copyright law is one of the few aspects of the same that actually interests me, or that I care to educate myself about. I believe in the (somewhat unfortunate) necessity of law in our society; further, I believe in the need for people to be informed for this to be effective to any degree. Corporate police (chances are the link will be down, depending on the day of the week, and how much of the Internet community is enraged at that point in time) should not exist, nor should they need to exist. Copyright and Intellectual Property law, if implemented effectively, should negate the need not only for enforcement, but for the existence of such bodies altogether!