>> International Commons at the Digital A g e Romillat edited by Dani?le Bourcier & M?lanie Dulong de Rosnay Science Ar t Libert? Zukunft Thuiskopie La cr?ation en partage International Commons at the Digital Age * La cr?ation en partage [ collection Droit et T e c h n o l og i e s ] Dirig?e par Dani?le Bourcier DI R E C T R I C E D ER E C H E R C H E S A U C.N.R.S. Avec la collaboration scientifique de Gilles Guglielmi U N I V E R S I T ?D E PA R I S X Marie-Ang?le Hermitte C.N.R.S. E H E S S Genevi?ve Koubi U N I V E R S I T ?D E C E R G Y-P O N TO I S E Christophe Roquilly E.D.H.E.C. La collection se consacre aux th?mes crois?s entre droit et technologies. Les technologies vis?es sont celles de l?information mais aussi celles du vivant, de l?environnement et de l?expertise. Le projet ?ditorial recouvre les questions juridiques et m?thodologiques pos?es par leur mise en ?uvre, et les r?flexions ?thiques et sociologiques suscit?es par leurs eff e t s . D?j? paru D roit et Intelligence A rt i f i c i e l l e Une R?volution de la connaissance juridique La libert? de la re c h e rche et ses limlites Approches juridiques Le r?glement en ligne des conflits Enjeux de la cybern?tique >> International Commons at the Digital A g e Romillat edited by Dani?le Bourcier & M?lanie Dulong de Rosnay La cr?ation en partage [ collection Droit et T e c h n o l og i e s ] You can purchase this book at: www.romillat.fr See pa ge 179 ? ?ditions Romillat, 2004 17, rue Pascal, 75005 Paris romillat@romillat.fr ISBN 2-87894-081-4 Cover derivated from ?desktop wallpaper?, image that illus- trates the Creative Commons idea. The original Chinese slo- gan is beautifully made (it even rhymes!), the translated slo- gan ought to be felt in a similar way: ?Copyright without Compromise, Creativity without Limit? ?Droit d?auteur sans compromis, cr?ativit? sans limite? ?The Same Copyright. With Boundless Creativity? ?Le m?me droit d?auteur. Avec la cr?ativit? sans fronti?res? The image can be downloaded from the Creative Commons Taiwan web site. ? Graphics designed by Miss Ching-I Roan, original ideas from Creative Commons Flash Movie "Reticulum Rex" available: at http://creativecommons.org/learnmore. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Foreword Lawrence Lessig 7 Introduction by the editors Dani?le Bourcier, M?lanie Dulong de Rosnay 9 1. The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process 17 Developing CC Licenses for Dutch Creatives Nynke Hendriks, The Netherlands 19 The Australian Creative Commons Experience Brian Fitzgerald, Ian Oi, Tom Cochrane, Cher Bartlett, Vicki Tzimas, Australia 33 Launching Creative Commons Taiwan: Background, Experience, and Opportunity Shun-Ling Chen, Tyng-Ruey Chuang, Ching-Yuan Huang, Yi-Hsuan Lin, Ta?wan 51 What is the Meaning of Non-Commercial? Mikael Pawlo, Sweden 69 2. Creative Commons Licenses and Open Governance: To Create and To Regulate 83 La cr?ation comme bien commun universel R?flexions sur un mod?le ?mergent Creation as a Universal Common Good Reflections on an Emergent Model Dani?le Bourcier, M?lanie Dulong de Rosnay, France 85 Legal Metadata and Open Content Distribution Herkko Hietanen, Ville Oksanen, Finland 95 5 Open Source Law Marcus Bornfreund, Canada 113 3. New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives 141 Creative Commons in Practice: Notes from the Trenches of the Independent Electronic Music Industry Bj?rn Hartmann, Contexterrior Media - Textone Netlabel (Berlin/Palo Alto) 143 Creative Commons ? iCommons und die Allmende - problematiken Creative Commons ? iCommons and the Problematic of Archiving Ellen Euler, Thomas Dreier, Germany 155 Appendix 169 Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 2.0 170 6 iCommons at the Digital Age F O R E W O R D L a w rence Lessig* The iCommons project is a world-wide movement, responding to two obvious facts about the regu- lation of creativity today: First, that copyright is essential to the dignity, and often the incentives, of creative authors. Second, that the existing system of copyright is insanely complex and often harmful to the interests of creators. iCommons thus spreads the Creative Commons tools to give authors free tools to enable them to mark their content with the freedom they intend their work to carry, while reserving the rights the author believes must be reserved. ?Some rights reserved? is the model, and tools to enable that exercise of author rights without requiring a lawyer to stand in the midd- le of the mix. This project has generated extraordinary enthusiasm internationally, as many respond to the unhelpful extremism of too many in the copyright debate. It has attracted musi- cians, academics, authors, film-makers and researchers internationally who want a simpler way to exercise their rights, without rejecting the protection of copyright altoge- ther. Thus, while we began this project in the United States, it responds to ideas that have no nationality. Unnecessary burdens imposed by the law are not popular anywhere. It is especially meaningful that this project takes root in France. France has long stood for two ideals that we believe Creative Commons embodies: liberty, and the respect for authors? rights. We believe, like many in France, that res- 7 pecting authors rights (as opposed, for example, to publi- shers) and enabling authors to exercise those rights easily, is a certain way to assure a wide range of valuable creativity. * Lawrence Lessig is a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. He also chairs the Creative Commons project. 8 iCommons at the Digital Age I N T R O D U C T I O N Dani?le Bourc i e r, M?lanie Dulong de Ro s n a y L?id?e de ce livre a ?t? lanc?e ? la suite de la session International Creative Commons qui s?est d?roul?e ? Berlin, en juin 2004 pendant la Conf?rence Wizards of OS. Cette session ?tait pr?sid?e par Christiane Asschenfeldt, directrice de International Creative Commons. Nous avons alors d?cid? de rassembler des contributions de chefs de projet1 c h a rg?s de l?adaptation nationale des licences Creative Commons dans un ouvrage qui devait sor- tir au moment du lancement des licences Creative Commons en France. Lawrence Lessig fut imm?diatement d?accord pour pr?facer cet ouvrage. Pourquoi ce livre sur Creative Commons International ? Creative Commons2 (CC) est une organisation internatio- nale ? but non lucratif qui offre une alternative au Droit d?au- teur int?gral - propos? par le droit en vigueur - pour aider les auteurs ? partager et ? utiliser les ?uvres de cr?ation. Le livre analyse les premi?res questions soulev?es par l?introduction des licences Creative Commons dans des sys- t?mes de droit diff?rents et constitue ? ce titre un v?ritable observatoire de la prise en compte de la ? diversit? culturel- le ? ? travers l?auto-r?gulation des acteurs d?Internet. Sont ainsi abord?s des th?mes aussi riches que l?adaptation aux sp?cificit?s nationales et aux syst?mes juridiques, l?influen- ce des licences Creative Commons sur le processus de cr?a- tion, les relations de ce dispositif avec la gestion du droit d?auteur traditionnel, l?originalit? de l?utilisation de m?ta- 9 donn?es dans l?expression des droits pour la recherche d?in- formation. Les licences Creative Commons traduites et adapt?es aux diff?rents droits nationaux sont nouvelles, mais plus de 2 millions d??uvres sont d?j? propos?es avec les licences g?n?riques dans le monde. Les contributions ont ?t? regroup?es en trois parties. La premi?re partie traite des processus de transposition et d?adaptation en droit hollandais (Nynke Hendricks), en droit australien (Brian Fitzgerald, Ian Oi, Tom Cochrane, Cher Bartlett, Vicki Tzimas) et en droit taiwanais (Shun-Ling Chen, Tyng-Ruey Chuang, Ching-Yuan Huang, Yi - H s u a n Lin). Mikael Pawlo (Su?de) s?int?resse ? la signification de la notion de ? n o n - c o m m e r c i a l ?, une option CC, ? travers les usages des bloggers qui ont adopt? tr?s t?t ce type de licen- c e . < La deuxi?me partie concerne la gouvernance et les nou- veaux modes de r?gulation sur Internet. Creative Commons est une initiative caract?ristique de la ? soci?t? civile des i n t e r n a u t e s ?. Dani?le Bourcier et M?lanie Dulong de Rosnay (France) montrent comment l?id?e de Commons (qui n?est pas nouvelle dans l?histoire politique des soci?t?s) peut renouveler l?approche du domaine public et de l?exclu- sivit? des droits de propri?t?. Herkko Hietanen et Ville Oksanen (Finlande) ont observ? plus particuli?rement la notion de m?tadonn?es et des modes de communication des ?contenus ouverts?. Enfin Marcus Bornfreund (Canada) ?tu- die les aspects juridiques et l?gistiques de l?open source. La troisi?me partie de l?ouvrage donne deux exemples d?usage de licences Creative Commons dans le domaine cul- turel. Bj?rn Hartmann (Textone Netlabel) d?crit une exp?- rience pratique dans le domaine de la musique, Ellen Euler et Thomas Dreier (Allemagne) dans le domaine des archives. 1 Les chefs de projet sont charg?s de traduire et d?adapter les licences Creative Commons ? leur droit national. Tous les chefs de projet (en octobre 2004, neuf projets ont ?t? finali- s?s et plus d?une vingtaine sont en cours d?adaptation) n?ont pas pu contribuer ? ce livre dans le laps de temps qui nous ?tait imparti. Les chapitres pr?sent?s ici refl?tent l?opinion de leurs auteurs et n?engagent pas Creative Commons. 2 http://creativecommons.org/ 10 iCommons at the Digital Age Remerciements Creative Commons France Cette initiative, lanc?e en juin 2003 en France, s?est d?roul?e en plusieurs ?tapes. Jacques Chevallier, directeur du Centre d??tude et de recherche en sciences administra- tives (CERSA) et professeur ? l?Universit? Paris II, a accep- t? l?affiliation du CERSA ? iCommons (Creative Commons International). Un forum - tr?s ouvert - anim? par M?lanie ainsi qu?un comit? de juristes ont r?uni, en 2003-2004, de nombreux coll?gues, utilisateurs et internautes qui ont particip? au pro- jet sur la liste de discussion, et lors de r?unions au CERSA. Enfin cette recherche pratique sur l??volution du droit d?auteur dans l?univers num?rique s?inscrit dans un des th?mes du programme du R?seau interdisciplinaire (RTP) Droit & Syst?mes d?information. Ce r?seau national, que nous animons, a ?t? soutenu activement depuis 2002 par le d?partement Science et Technologies de l?Information et de la Communication (STIC) du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Que tous ces intervenants qui ont facilit? notre initiative ? des titres divers soient ici vivement remerci?s. Participations au livre Ce livre est le r?sultat d?un travail collectif. Des remer- ciements doivent ?tre adress?s ? Lawrence Lessig et aux auteurs des contributions: ils ont accept? les contraintes du projet ?ditorial qui devait combiner ? la fois les aspects tech- niques, politiques, juridiques et scientifiques de ces licences, et tout cela sous une forme condens?e. Ils y sont arriv?s. Les contributeurs participeront certainement ? d?autres publications plus approfondies - car le projet va ?voluer et s?enrichir - mais cette publication a le privil?ge d??tre le pre- mier ouvrage c o l l e c t i f et international sur Creative Commons. 11 Nous remercions aussi Diemo Schwarz pour la mise en page des articles, Notre ?diteur Alain Martinet (?ditions Romillat), qui a vu tr?s rapidement l?int?r?t des licences Creative Commons pour les ?diteurs ind?pendants, Et toutes les personnes qui ont fait confiance ? cette ini- tiative et l?ont soutenue, dans un domaine o? les nouveaux d?bats juridiques sont parfois difficiles ? organiser mais si stimulants ? entreprendre. PARIS, OCTOBRE 2004 12 iCommons at the Digital Age I N T R O D U C T I O N Dani?le Bourc i e r, M?lanie Dulong de Ro s n a y This book is the result of the International Creative Commons panel at Wizard of OS conference, gathering in Berlin in June 2004. The panel was chaired by Christiane Asschenfeldt, director of International Creative Commons. We have taken the opportunity of this meeting to propose a book gathering contributions from pro- ject leads3. This book was to be published for the launch of the Creative Commons licenses France. Lawrence Lessig immediately agreed to propose a foreword. Why this book on International Creative Commons Creative Commons4 (CC) is a non-profit organization which offers an alternative to full copyright proposed by the law to help authors to share and use creative works. The book analyses the first questions raised by the intro- duction of Creative Commons licenses in different legal sys- tems and constitutes an observatory of the accounting of ? cultural diversity ? through Internet actors self-regulation. Different themes are discussed, such as the adaptation to national specificities and legal systems, the influence of Creative Commons licenses on the creation process, the rela- tion of this instrument with traditional copyright manage- ment, the originality of using metadata in rights expressions for information retrieval. Creative Commons licenses trans- lated and adapted to various national legislations are new, but more than 2 billions of works are already available under 13 the generic licenses worldwide. The contributions are divided into three parts. The first part presents the porting and adaptation process in Dutch law (Nynke Hendricks), in Australian law (Brian Fitzgerald, Ian Oi, Tom Cochrane, Cher Bartlett, Vicki Tzimas) and in Taiwanese law (Shun-Ling Chen, Tyng-Ruey Chuang, Ching-Yuan Huang, Yi-Hsuan Lin). Mikael Pawlo (Sweden) is interested in the meaning of the ? Non Commercial ? notion, a CC option, through the usages of bloggers, early adopters of these licenses. The second part is related to e-governance and new regu- lation instruments on the Internet. Creative Commons initia- tive is characteristic of the Web civil society. Dani?le Bourcier and M?lanie Dulong de Rosnay (France) describe how the idea of Commons (which is not new in political science) renews the study of public domain and property rights exclusivity. Herkko Hietanen and Ville Oksanen (Finland) observed particularly the concept of metadata and open content communication modes. Finally Marcus Bornfreund (Canada) studies the legal and legistic aspects of open source. The third part of the book provides two use cases for Creative Commons licenses in the cultural field. Bj?rn Hartmann (Textone Netlabel) describes a concrete experien- ce in the music domain, Ellen Euler and Thomas Dreier (Germany) in the archiving domain. 3 Project leads are in charge of the translation of Creative Commons licenses and their adap- tation to national legislations. All national porting project leads (in October 2004, nine pro- jects were already finalized and more than twenty projects are in progress) could not contri- bute during the allocated time period. The chapters presented hereafter only represent the opinion of their authors and do not imply Creative Commons?.4 http://creativecommons.org/ 14 iCommons at the Digital Age Acknowledgments Creative Commons France The porting of the licences in French happened in several steps. Jacques Chevallier, director of Research Center for Administrative Science (CERSA) and Professor at University Paris II, accepted in 2003 the affiliation to iCommons (International Creative Commons) of the Center, a joint research institute in law and political science of the University of Paris 2 and the National Center for Scientific Research. A forum animated by M?lanie, as well as a legal experts panel, gathered in 2003-2004 several colleagues and users who participated to the project on the discussion list or at CERSA. This applied research on copyright law evolution in the digital environment is registered as a theme of an interdisci- plinary network program on Law and Information Systems, supported since 2002 by Information and Communication Technologies Science department, an important sector of the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). Contributions to the book This book is the result of a collective work. Many thanks are adressed to Lawrence Lessig and to the authors of this book contributions: they accepted the editorial project constraints to combine these licenses technical, political, legal and scientific aspects in a condensed format. The contributors will certainly participate to more developed publications as the project is getting larger and richer, while this has the privilege to be the first collective and internatio - nal book on Creative Commons. Thanks also to Diemo Schwarz for the articles layout, To Alain Martinet (Romillat) interested in Creative com- mons project as an independent publisher, 15 To all who trusted and supported this initiative, in a domain where it is sometimes difficult but so rewarding to debate upon new legal concepts. PARIS, OCTOBRE 2004 16 iCommons at the Digital Age Part 1. The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process 17 D E V E L O P I N G C C L I C E N S E S F O R D U T C H C R E AT I V E S Nynke He n d ri k s* R?sum? Les licences Creative Commons n?erlandaises (version 1.0) ont ?t? lanc?es le 18 juin 2004. La participation des Pays-Bas (projet CC-NL) a commenc? d?but 2004 avec l?adaptation au droit n?er- landais des onze licences originales et de la licence d?di?e au domaine public. Cette contribution ? l?ouvrage sur les exp?riences des pays par- ticipant au projet Creative Commons discute de certains aspects juridiques de la conversion des licences CC au droit n?erlandais.Au- del? de ces aspects juridiques, l?attention est port?e sur l?applica- bilit? des licences CC n?erlandaises et en particulier sur les diffi- cult?s rencontr?es par les musiciens souhaitant appliquer ces licences en raison du syst?me n?erlandais de collecte de rede- vances. Abstract The Dutch Creative Commons Licenses (version 1.0) were launched on 18 June 2004. Dutch participation in the iCommons project (NL-CC project) commenced at the start of 2004 with the porting of the 11 original licenses and the Public Domain Dedication to Dutch law. This contribution to the iCommons book on experiences of EU countries with the Creative Commons (CC) licenses will discuss some of the legal aspects of the conversion of the licenses into Dutch law. In addition to the discussion of these 19 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process legal aspects, attention is also drawn to the applicability of the Dutch CC licenses and in particular, the difficulties faced by musicians wishing to apply the Dutch CC licenses caused by the Dutch royalties collection system. Legal aspects of the con version of the CC licenses into Dutch la w An essential aspect of the localization of the CC licenses is that all licenses across the world should be as close to the (US) originals as possible. They may only differ from the original licenses where absolutely necessary and not on grounds of policy or philosophy. A consequence of this strict rule of uniformity is that the Dutch licenses have been drawn up in an American vein and as a result occasionally have a distinctly ?non-Dutch? feel about them. This is for example apparent in the extensive non-liability clauses at various points in the text of the licenses. Despite the uniformity rule, the Dutch CC licenses devia- te from the original licenses in various respects. The changes made to the original licenses are the result of differences bet- ween US and Dutch copyright law and contract law. Below, five of these changes are discussed in further detail. First of all, the differences between the American and Dutch use of the term ?copyright? and the addition of related rights and database rights to the Dutch licenses. Secondly, the statuto- ry fees payable in the Netherlands and the non-payment of fees provided in Article 5 CC license. Thirdly, the assign- ment of future exploitation rights in the Netherlands (Article 3 CC license). Fourthly, the principle of the automatic contract as applied in the CC license and how this is regula- ted under Dutch law and in Dutch case law. Finally, the pro- blem of waiving copyrights under Dutch copyright law in the context of the Public Domain Dedication is discussed. 20 iCommons at the Digital Age The US and Dutch use of the term ?copyright? and the addition of related rights and database rights The CC licenses seek to broaden access to copyrighted works. Such works will usually concern writings, music, film, photographs and websites. The US concept of copy- right may protect all such creative expression, including the performing rights, which in EU countries are separately qua- lified as related rights. The Dutch CC licenses therefore separately list the related rights wherever the original US licenses mention copyright. The Dutch Related Rights Act dates from 1993.1 Since its introduction, this Act has been amended by various EU Directives as a result of which the Dutch concept of related rights is in line with the EU concept of such rights.2 The explicit reference to the related rights in the Dutch CC licenses is therefore of a European rather than a specifically Dutch nature. Copyright and related rights both protect works or per- formances without any prior registration of such rights being required. The same applies to the database rights, which were introduced in the EU by the Database Directive of 1996.3 This Directive was implemented in Dutch law in 1999 in the existing Copyright Act and a new Database Act.4 The copyright protection of databases is confined to data- bases complying with the originality requirement that applies to all copyrighted works in the Netherlands, i.e. the selection of the data must express the personal vision of the author.5 The copyright protection of the database does not affect any copyright or other rights to data included in the database. However, given that a database?s value was often based on the database?s complete nature rather than on the perso- nal vision of the compiler in the selection of the database, the limited copyright protection of databases was deemed i n s u ff i c i e n t .6 The Database Directive and the ensuing Database Act therefore introduced a new sui generis right, i.e. the database right. 21 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process Like related rights, database rights may be regarded as an extension of copyright protection. Albeit, with the important difference that their protection is based on investment rather than originality. The Database Act, in conformance with the Database Directive, defines a database as ?a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a sys- tematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means, and for which the acquisition, control or presentation of the contents, evaluated qualitati- vely or quantitatively, bears witness to a substantial invest- ment? (Section 1(1) under a Database Act).7 The number of databases has increased greatly in the Internet age and the applicability of database rights is there- fore all the more relevant within the scope of the CC licenses. US law does not (yet) recognize database rights as such. However, in view of the CC?s objective of widely dissemi- nating information protected by intellectual property, the Dutch CC licenses have inserted the database rights where- ver copyrights are mentioned. In line with the addition of database rights to the CC licenses, the two principal rights pertaining to the database right holder, i.e. the extraction and re-utilization of the data- base, have also been added to the list of rights, which may be exercised under the CC licenses (Article 3 CC licenses). The non-payment of royalties, fees or other payments (Article 5 CC licenses) and statutory levies in the Netherlands Article 5 of the CC licenses stipulates that the licensee is under no obligation to pay ?any royalties,compulsory license fees, residuals or any other pay- ments.? In the Netherlands, as in most other European countries, the reproduction of copyrighted works (for private use) is however subject to an extensive system of statutory levies. This means 22 iCommons at the Digital Age that the licensee may be obliged by law to pay some levies when reproducing a work provided under a CC license. The Dutch system of statutory levies on the reproduction of copyrighted works includes the following two categories: the reprography levies (reproduction on paper or any similar medium) and levies on audio and visual data carriers. The reprography levy systems differ significantly per EU country, both in terms of price and type of sector to which the system applies (public, private, educational, etc.).8 In the Netherlands, the statutory reprography levies do not apply to copies for private use. Levies are however imposed on any other copies made by an enterprise, organi- zation or other establishment (e.g. a copy centre), with a price reduction for educational institutions (except for aca- demic institutions). The levies are collected by a special foundation (Stichting Reprorecht) designated as a rights organization by the Minister of Justice. The rightholders of the copyrighted works (i.e. the licen- sor) are represented through their collective organizations. The rightholders may waive their right to compensation, provided their (publishing) contracts allow this.9 Where the licensee of a CC license is able to demonstrate that such a right has been lawfully waived, no compensation needs to be paid. The statutory levies on audio and visual data carriers are governed by a different regime. Significantly, they do apply to private use reproduction. In fact, the mass reproduction for private use of music, films, etc. was one of the principal reasons for setting up a levy system to compensate the copy- right and related rights holder of these works.10 Under this regime, the compensation for the rightholders is charged to the manufacturer or importer of the data carriers concerned. In practice, this payment is passed on to consumers through a surcharge added to the price of empty audio and visual data carriers (videos, CD?s, CD-ROM?s, etc.). Once again, a spe- cial foundation (i.e. Stichting De Thuiskopie) designated as a rights organization by the Minister of Justice collects the levies and distributes them among the rightholders. 23 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process In this system the licensee of a CC license will therefore at all times be obliged to pay the fixed statutory levy as it is included in the standard retail price of data carriers. In view of the foregoing, Article 5 under a part i. of the Dutch license has therefore omitted the non-payment of ?residuals or any other payments? as they may refer to statu- tory levies that are compulsory without prejudice to the license agreement. The assignment of future exploitation rights in the Netherlands Article 3 of the CC licenses lists the rights granted to the licensee, which may vary depending on the specific CC license and which may include the right to reproduce work, to create derivative works and to distribute copies of the work. This varying list of rights is followed by the following provision: ?The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whe- ther now known or hereafter devised.? This provision implies the right to exercise future exploi- tation rights ensuing from as yet unknown media and/or for- mats. Under Dutch copyright law, this raises the question as to whether the assignment of such rights is allowed. Section 2(2) of the Dutch Copyright Act 1912 provides that ?the assignment shall comprise only such rights as are recorded in the deed or necessarily derive from the nature or purpose of the title.? Dutch courts have traditionally inter- preted this provision in a narrow sense, i.e. in favour of the author.11 It nevertheless remains unclear just how restrictive the interpretation should be. It has been argued that where a (license) contract explicitly refers to an assignment of, for example, ?the copyright including all powers conferred or to be conferred by law? that such a contract thereby lawfully assigns all future exploitation rights.12 However, in 1997 the Amsterdam District Court had to render a decision in a case where a national Dutch newspa- 24 iCommons at the Digital Age per (de Volkskrant) had published the articles of some free- lance journalists both on a CD-Rom and on its Internet site without requesting the journalists? prior permission to use their work in this manner. The Court ruled that such exploi- tation of their work was not allowed in view of the fact that when the license contracts between the newspaper and the journalists were concluded, the digital exploitation forms concerned (i.e. CD-Rom and Internet) could not have been foreseen and these exploitation rights had therefore not been assigned by the journalists. The assignment of future exploi- tation rights was thereby confined to the assignment of expected exploitation rights, the scope of which is also sub- ject to debate. Given the uncertainty of the interpretation of Section 2(2) Copyright Act 1912 (contrasting, for example, with Section 31(4) of the German Civil Code which explicitly excludes the assignment of future exploitation rights) and the conclu- sions to be drawn from the above decision, it has therefore been decided to alter said provision in Article 3 of the origi- nal CC licenses to read as follows: ?The above rights may be exercised in all known media and for- mats? In conformance with the above decision of the Amsterdam District Court, this provision may well be inter- preted as ?foreseeable? media and formats rather than any new versions of existing media and formats. The principle of the automatic contract in the CC licenses The CC licenses are based on the idea of the automatic contract. Each time a work is distributed or publicly digital- ly performed a license agreement is offered to the recipient (Article 8 under a and b). The second paragraph of the licenses under ?License? specifies how this offer is accepted by the recipient, namely: ?by exercising any rights to the work provided here, you accept and agree to be bound by the terms of this license.? 25 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process Under Dutch contract law, a CC license is regarded as a mutual contract. As such, the license is legally concluded by an offer by one party and the acceptance of this offer by ano- ther party (Section 6:217(1) Dutch Civil Code). The offer and the acceptance must both be a declaration of intention and the agreement must be the result of consensus. This raises the question as to whether the kind of acceptance spe- cified above may be considered a declaration of intention under Dutch contract law. After all, it is not certain whether a recipient, upon exercising any rights to the work, is aware that he/she has accepted an agreement through exercising any of these rights.13 To date, there has only been one judgment in relation to this kind of license agreement. This concerned a so-called shrink-wrap agreement whereby the license agreement was accepted by opening the shrink-wrap.14 The Amsterdam District Court ruled that the mere opening of a package does not suffice to conclude an agreement. This may only be concluded where the recipient is aware, prior to accepting the offer to conclude the agreement, that he/she will conclu- de a license agreement in this manner. The terms of the agreement must also be clear to him/her beforehand. Otherwise, the requisite correspondence of intention is absent and no legally valid agreement will have been conclu- ded. It must thereby be noted that the judgment does not spe- cify exactly when (i.e. under what circumstances) the terms of the agreement are considered to have been made suffi- ciently clear to the recipient. In view of the foregoing, the second paragraph of the licenses, under ?License?, has therefore been altered in the Dutch CC licenses to read as follows: ?By exercising any rights to the work provided here,You accept and agree to be bound by the terms of this License,provided that (the content of) this License has been made sufficiently clear to the recipient beforehand.? 26 iCommons at the Digital Age This provision ensures that the CC license is at all times legally valid under Dutch contract law. The Public Domain Dedication and the waiving of copyrights Apart from the 11 CC licenses revolving around the 4 optional terms of use (attribution, derivative works, sharea- like and/or (non-) commercial use), an author may also deci- de to dedicate his/her work to the public domain by way of a CC Public Domain Dedication. This dedication means that the author waives all copyrights to the work. Such a waiver is irrevocable and not bound by time. The Dutch Copyright Law Act 1912 does not explicitly refer to the (im)possibility of waiving copyrights. In the Netherlands, as in other European countries, copyright auto- matically ensues from the creation of a work and no formal act is required in this respect. In view of this ?natural law? aspect of copyright, it is generally believed that an author cannot waive his/her copyright.15 It is nevertheless possible to closely approximate the sub- stance of the original Public Domain Dedication by rephra- sing it. Essential to the Dutch statement is that the dedicator states that he/she will not exercise in any way any of the copyrights to the work concerned (or related rights to the performance concerned or database rights to the database concerned). This statement is also irrevocable and not bound by time and will in practise often have a similar effect to that of the US Public Domain Dedication. Within this scope, reference must be made to the moral rights of the dedicator.1 6 Section 25(3) of the Dutch Copyright Act allows authors to waive some of their moral rights (the right to attribution and to oppose slight changes made to the work). However, the moral right (Section 25(1) under d. to oppose ?any distortion, mutilation or other impairment of the work that could be prejudicial to the name or reputation of the author or to his/her dignity as such? can- not be waived. Given this explicit provision it must be assu- 27 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process med that the author may continue to exercise this moral right irrespective of the ?Public Domain Statement?. After all, the nature of moral rights differs from the natu- re of copyrights. For example, the latter may be assigned to other parties while the moral rights are strictly ?personal?. The moral rights continue to belong to the author even after the copyrights have been assigned. And while some of the moral rights may be waived, the right under Section 25(1) under d. Dutch Copyright Act 1912 has been deemed of such importance that such a waiver is not permitted. This implies that this right will at all times be at the disposal of the author. The applicability of the Dutch Creative Commons Licenses To date, the Dutch CC licenses have proved to be parti- cularly popular with individuals and organizations already publishing on the Internet through newsletters and web magazines for example. In addition, the Dutch CC licenses are expected to be used especially by starting writers, musicians, and filmma- kers etc. who are looking for distribution channels to make their work more widely known. Another reason for applying a CC license to one?s work may be to distribute older works that are no longer available through traditional retail chan- nels. However, a particular problem facing Dutch musicians in this respect is the collective music rights system in the Netherlands. Virtually all composers, songwriters and music publi- shers in the Netherlands are affiliated with Buma/Stemra, i.e. the collective management organization exclusively representing their interests, inter alia, by collecting copy- rights and related rights royalties and distributing them among its members. Buma/Stemra acts on the basis of exploitation contracts with its members. There is one stan- dard contract for all members. This contract obliges musi- cians to assign the exploitation of all copyrights and related rights of their existing and future works to Buma/Stemra. It 28 iCommons at the Digital Age is, for example, not possible to assign the exploitation rights of some works while retaining the rights of other works. As a result of this system, it is most difficult for members of Buma/Stemra to distribute their works under a CC licen- se. The applicability of the CC licenses has therefore so far been confined to the few musicians that are not affiliated with Buma/Stemra. Conclusion As is clear from the foregoing, the Dutch CC-licenses dif- fer from the US licenses in several respects. This article has drawn attention to five significant changes made to the ori- ginal licenses. First of all, the broad concept of US copyright has been adapted to the Dutch (i.e. European) situation referring sepa- rately to related rights and adding database rights. Secondly, the non-profit nature of the CC licenses comes to the fore in Article 5 of the licenses with the explicit state- ment that the licensee is not obliged to pay ?any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments?. However, in the Netherlands some statutory fees may apply which the licensee will be obliged to pay. This concerns in particular the so-called reprography fees, which are laid down by law and are payable upon copying (parts of) a work protected by copyright. The Dutch version of Article 5 has therefore been altered to take this statutory obligation into account. Thirdly, Article 3 of the original CC licenses provides that the rights granted to the licensee may be exercised in all media and formats ?whether now known or hereafter devi- sed?. The assignment of future exploitation rights continues to be a complicated issue in the Netherlands, particularly the scope of the rights that may be assigned. In 1997, a Dutch court ruled that a license concerning the assignment of copy- rights did not include the assignment of rights (i.e. CD-Rom and Internet rights) that were unforeseen upon issuing the license. This may well be interpreted as a prohibition of the 29 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process assignment of future exploitation rights. In the light of this interpretation, Article 3 in the Dutch licenses has been confi- ned to the assignment of existing rights. Fourthly, the original licenses are based on the principle of the so-called automatic contract. By the mere exercise of any rights to the work provided by the licensor the person exercising those rights is bound by the terms of the appli- cable license. Contrary to US law, a license is at all times regarded as a contract under Dutch law and contract law the- refore applies. Dutch contract law does not recognize the automatic contract as such. The (contents of the) licenses must have been made sufficiently clear to the recipient befo- rehand for a contract to be legally valid. This requirement has therefore been added to the original provision. Finally, in addition to the 11 licenses that provide the licensee with specific rights of use, a creator may also opt to waive the copyright to his/her work and dedicate his/her work to the public domain by means of the Public Domain Dedication. Waiving copyrights is not possible under Dutch copyright law. A creator may however state that he/she will not exercise his/her copyright in any way. This statement is irrevocable and, for all practical purposes amounts to a public domain dedication in the sense that others will be free to reuse the work however they choose and without any obli- gations on their part. In this respect, specific reference must be made to the moral rights that apply to all Dutch licenses. Although the author may state that he/she will not exercise his/her copyrights in any way, such a statement does not include the moral right to oppose ?any distortion, mutilation or other impairment of the work that could be prejudicial to the name or reputation of the author or to his/her dignity as such?. This moral right must be deemed to be intrinsically intertwined with the author. The fact that the original author might at some point exercise this moral right must therefore be kept in mind. The discussion of these legal aspects will undoubtedly correspond in many ways with the experiences of other European iCommons project leads given that EU copyright 30 iCommons at the Digital Age law has been largely harmonized, and is often characterized by the same differences with US copyright and contract law. However, the foregoing has been intended to shed some light on the specific nature of some Dutch copyright law and contract law provisions and their effect on the CC licenses. In addition, this chapter has indicated some of the uses of the CC licenses in the Netherlands and the difficulties encounte- red in the application of the CC licenses, in particular by Dutch musicians. * The author studied law at the University of Amsterdam, specializing in information law, and is currently working on the Creative Commons project as a researcher for the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam. The participants in the Dutch Creative Commons Licenses are: The NL-CC project is a joint venture between the Institute for Information Law (IViR) and DISC (a project of the Waag Society and Stichting Nederland Kennisland). The Institute for Information Law (IViR) is part of the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam. The Institute is the largest research facility in the field of information law in Europe. It employs over 25 qualified researchers who actively study and report on a wide range of subjects in the field of information law. Prof. P. Bernt Hugenholtz (IViR) and Nynke Hendriks (CC project researcher for the IViR) are the project leads in the Netherlands. DISC (Domain for Innovative Software & Content) seeks to support non-profit organiza- tions in the public domain that are interested in using open source software. The Waag Society carries out research, develops new concepts and software applications and initiates the debate on old and new media in the form of public events. Finally, Stichting Nederland Kennisland supports projects stimulating the knowledge economy in the Netherlands. The address of the Dutch Creative Commons site is www.creativecommons.nl 1 Related Rights Act (Wet op de naburige rechten), 18 March 1993, Stb. 178. 2 It has been amended to Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental rights and lending rights and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectu- al property OJ L 346/61 (27.11.1992), to Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights OJ L 290/9 (24.11.1993), to Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyrights and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission OJ L 248/15 (06.10.1993), and to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the har- monisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society OJ L 167/10 (22.06.2001). 3 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases OJ L 077/20 (27.03.1996). 4 Database Act (Databankenwet), Act of 8 July 1999, Stb. 1999, 303, relating to the adap- tation of the Dutch legislation to Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. 31 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process 5 Netherlands Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) 4 January 1991, NJ 1991, 608 (Romme/Van Dale). 6 N. van Lingen, Auteursrecht in hoofdlijnen, Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff 2002, p. 70. 7 It must be noted that the investment may refer to a financial investment, but also to an investment of time, effort and energy (Recital 40 of the Database Directive). 8 For a more detailed account of the reprography levy systems existing within the EU, please refer to a recent study conducted by Lucie Guibault (Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam) for the Dutch Ministry of Justice: ?The reprography levies across the European Union?, March 2003, available at www.ivir.nl. 9 N. van Lingen, Auteursrecht in hoofdlijnen, Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff 2002, p. 150. 10 L. Wichers Hoeth, Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht, Nauta Dutilh 2000, p. 364. 11 See, inter alia, annotation by H. Cohen Jehoram to the judgment of 24 September 1997 of the Amsterdam District Court (Heg et al vs. De Volkskrant), in: Informatierecht/AMI November 1997, pp. 194-197. It must thereby be noted that, to date, the Netherlands Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) has not rendered any decision in regard to Section 2(2) Dutch Copyright Act 1912. 12 J.H. Spoor and D.W.F. Verkade, Auteursrecht: auteursrecht en naburige rechten, Deventer: Kluwer 1993, p. 360. 13 See also K. Koelman, ?Multimedialicenties. Enkele juridische en praktische knelpunten?, pp. 113-114, in: ITER (10), Alphen a/d Rijn: Samsom Bedrijfsinformatie 1998, pp. 113-119. 14 Amsterdam District Court, 24 May 1995 (Coss/TM Data), Computerrecht 1997/2, pp. 63-65. 15 See, J.H. Spoor and D.W.F. Verkade, Auteursrecht: auteursrecht en naburige rechten, Deventer: Kluwer 1993p. 447. 16 The moral rights issue also applies to the 11 original licenses, in particular the licenses allowing derivate works to be made. However, a discussion of the effects of the moral rights is beyond the scope of this particular article. 32 iCommons at the Digital Age T H E i C O M M O N S A U S T R A L I A E X P E R I E N C E 1 Brian Fi t z g e r a l d , Ian Oi, Tom Cochrane, Cher Ba rt l e t t and Vicki Tz i m a s* R?sum? Le travail d?adaptation des licences Creative Commons (CC) pour l?Australie a ?t? men? par iCommons Australie, une ?quipe de r?daction form?e de juristes australiens. D?un c?t?, il s?agissait d??tre attentif au processus de transposition et de ne pas perdre de vue l?objectif g?n?ral qui est d?apporter un r?gime de licence international coh?rent et consistant ? travers lequel les licences CC comportant les m?mes ?l?ments auront en substance le m?me effet juridique, quelle que soit la localisation de l?offrant et de l?ac- ceptant de la licence. D?un autre c?t?,l?adoption non ?clair?e de la version am?ricaine des licences CC passerait ? c?t? de diff?rences subtiles entre le droit et la pratique des deux pays. Le processus de transposition a donc demand? de la part de l??quipe australienne d??quilibrer ces consid?rations, en identifiant les sujets pour les- quels l?application dans l?environnement local pouvait ?tre am?lio- r?, et de rep?rer s?il y avait des tensions in?vitables dans la r?dac- tion entre les aspects du droit et de la pratique juridique des deux pays. A partir de ces analyses, plusieurs changements ont ?t? sugg?- r?s par l??quipe australienne dans la r?daction de l?adaptation des licences. Ces changements concernent principalement les diff?- rences entre le droit d?auteur et la terminologie, le droit de la consommation et le droit moral dans la l?gislation australienne. Certaines de ces questions, en particulier comment le droit moral des auteurs doit ?tre consid?r? dans l?env i ronnement des Commons, soul?vent des questions difficiles de principe et de phi- 33 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process losophie qui n?aboutissent pas ? des solutions faciles. D?autres sujets, telle que la confrontation avec la taxation sur la valeur ajou- t?e des biens et des services, sont principalement des questions de mise en oeuvre et d?application qui peuvent toutefois influencer mat?riellement la forme et la substance des CC. Certaines de ces questions sont examin?es ci-dessous. Abstract Work by iCommons Australia on porting the Creative Commons (CC) licence for Australia has been carried out by a drafting team of Australian lawyers. On the one hand, an important consideration of the porting process is to not lose sight of the overall objective of providing a coherent, consis- tent international licensing regime through which CC licences with the same licensing elements will have in substance the same legal effect, no matter where the licensor and licensee are located.On the other hand,an unknowing adoption of the US version of the CC licences would miss subtle differences in law and licensing practice between the two countries.The porting process has therefore required the Australian team to balance these considerations, by identifying matters in which implementation in the local environment could be improved, and considering whether there are any inevitable tensions in the drafting, between aspects of the US and local law and practice. Arising from these analyses, a number of drafting changes have been suggested by the Australian team in drafting the ported CC licence. These changes primarily address diffe- rences in copyright and licensing law and terminology, consu- mer protection law and moral rights under Australian legisla- tion.Some of these issues ? in particular, how the moral rights of authors should be treated in a commons environment ? raise difficult issues of philosophy and principle that do not yield easy solutions. Other issues - such as the extent to which GST taxation matters should be directly confronted in a CC licence - are primarily matters of implementation and enforcement that can, nonetheless, materially influence the 34 iCommons at the Digital Age shape and substance of the CC. Some of these issues will be examined below. Taxation issues In Australia, goods and services tax (GST) is imposed on a wide range of transactions including in some circum- stances the supply of goods, services or grant of rights. GST is only payable in relation to supplies: ? made for consideration (whether monetary or non-moneta- ry); and ? made in the course or furtherance of an ?enterprise? car- ried on by the supplier. The definition of ?enterprise? excludes activities done as a private recreational pursuit or hobby; and ? connected with Australia; and ? made by a supplier who is registered or required to register for GST (generally this includes enterprises that have an annual turnover of AUD50,000 or more). The CC licences may be used in a wide variety of cir- cumstances, involving a broad spectrum of: ? kinds of licensors; ? kinds of licensees; ? locations of licensors and licensees; and ? kinds of licensed materials. Different GST implications will arise depending on the circumstances of a particular transaction. The issue is also complicated by the practical difficulties in enforcing the CC licences, in that neither party signs the document or commu- nicates on a one-to-one basis with the other regarding it. This gives rise to the following difficulties: ? licensees might have difficulty in enforcing licence provi- sions (including provisions in relation to GST) against licensors, as there is no obligation on licensors to identi- fy themselves with sufficient particularity in the licensed material; and 35 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process ? licensors might have difficulty in enforcing licence provi- sions (such as GST-related ones) against licensees, as there is no obligation on licensees to communicate their acceptance of the licence form. The following comments can therefore only be made at a high level of generality with no particular application to spe- cifically contemplated licensing transactions using the CC licence form. The comments would have to carefully elabo- rated if they were to be applied to any particular licensing transaction or scenario using the CC licence form. For some licensing transactions involving use of a CC licence, the GST legislation will not, on its terms, impose an obligation on the licensor to pay GST. Examples may be where: ? the supply is not connected with Australia; or ? the recipient of the supply is not registered (and is not required to be registered) for GST and is not required to disclose an Australian Business Number (ABN); or ? the supply is not made in the course or furtherance of an ?enterprise? (eg, because it is an activity done as a priva- te recreational pursuit or hobby); or ? the supply constitutes an export that is treated as GST-free. Special GST rules also apply for educational institutions and charities, so that some (but not all) of their activities might be treated as GST-free. For other licensing transactions involving use of a CC licence, it is possible that the GST legislation will impose an obligation on the licensor to pay GST. Importantly, the fol- lowing should be noted: ? The grant of copyright licence contemplated by the CC licence form would arguably constitute a ?supply? within the meaning of the GST legislation. ? The restraints and positive obligations on the licensee contemplated by the CC licence form would arguably constitute ?consideration? within the meaning of the GST legislation. In this regard, note that: 36 iCommons at the Digital Age (a) the statutory definition of ?consideration? is potential- ly broader than ?consideration? within the common law meaning for the purposes of contract law, as it includes any act or forbearance in connection with the supply of anything, or in response to or for the induce- ment of a supply of anything. It is therefore possible that even if a licence in the CC form is held contrac- tually unenforceable for (say) illusory/bad considera- tion at common law, those matters might nevertheless still fall within the literal bounds of the statutory defi- nition of ?consideration?. (b) it is not necessary that there be any legal obligation to provide the consideration. (c) where the consideration is not expressed in money, the consideration is ?the GST inclusive market value of that consideration?. Although it can be hard to value such non-monetary consideration, the preponderance of authority favours the view that difficulties in deter- mining the amount of consideration cannot of itself justify the conclusion that no consideration exists. ? The combination of the licensing transaction under a CC licence and other transactions between the licensor and licensee might also affect the analysis, such that additio- nal supplies and/or consideration could be construed. Where a transaction involving use of a CC licence is such as to attract the imposition of GST liability on the licensor, there may be circumstances allowing the licensor to argue that the GST payable in the transaction is zero because the GST inclusive market value of that consideration is zero. Equally, however, there may also be other circumstances in the transaction that make such arguments difficult. It is also possible that a licensee, in undertaking to abide by certain conditions, may be treated as making a supply to the licensor in return for the licence. After we concluded that there is a material risk that the CC licence form may be used in some circumstances in which GST liability will be imposed on the licensor, we 37 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process decided that there were two broad approaches that could be taken as to the management of that risk: Option 1 - the CC licence can be silent about this risk, so that the practical burden of the risk remains with the licen- sor. Option 2 - the CC licence expressly provides that the licensor can recover from the licensee the amount of GST payable (by the licensor to the Australian Taxation Office). This Option tries to transfer the practical burden of the risk to the licensee. This Option is not uncommon in commercial licensing practice, and it is rare for licensees to object to its imposition in commercial transactions provided there is cer- tainty regarding both the imposition of liability and the quantum of liability. There are practical difficulties associated with both Options. In both cases, a licensor may not know (as a matter of course and without taking special measures) when the licence has been invoked and who invoked it. In one sense, adopting Option 1 (rather than Option 2) would be consis- tent with acknowledging this practical difficulty; that is, why should a licensor bother including contractual rights to reco- ver GST amounts from the licensee when the licensor will not (as a matter of course) have that practical opportunity? For present purposes, Option 1 has been adopted in the drafting: that is, the CC licence is silent about the risk of imposition of GST on the transaction, so that the practical burden of the risk remains with the licensor. Regardless of which Option is taken, iCommons Australia intends to provide licensors and licencees with commentary noting this potential risk and strongly sugges- ting that they take their own professional tax advice before using the CC licence form. This is particularly important, if Option 1 is adopted, so as to minimise and mitigate the risks for CC (as an organisation) arising from third party use of the CC licence form. In addition, there appears to be nothing to stop variants of the CC licence form being developed, that: 38 iCommons at the Digital Age (a) adopt Option 2; and (b) include particular mechanisms by which the licensor can identify/authenticate individual licensees, and per- haps even strengthen the legal enforceability of the licence (eg. by obtaining stronger manifestations of consideration and assent from individual licensees). In addition, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) could be requested to provide a binding private ruling on the mat- ter. Such an application would need to be made on behalf of an identified licensor (or licensors) and in relation to a par- ticular proposed transaction. It would only be binding on the ATO in relation to that particular transaction (or transac- tions). However, the ATO would not normally depart from its position in relation to other identical transactions. This would involve some effort and delay and it is possible (but not certain) that the ATO would agree that there are no taxable supplies involved in the licensing transactions (or that any taxable supplies are for consideration that is of no value). This would give practical comfort to users of the CC licence that they are complying with their GST obligations. Finally, it is useful to note that the two other common law countries that are participating in the CC internationalisation project and which have comparable taxation schemes (the UK and Ireland) have remained silent on the issue in their latest draft licence versions. Neither licence mentions the Value Added Tax (VAT) operating in those countries. Collection of commercial r oyalties The US version of the A t t r i b u t i o n - N o n C o m m e r c i a l - ShareAlike 2.0 licence reserves to the licensor, the exclusive right to collect royalties for any public performance (digital or otherwise) of the licensed work or for any cover version which is created from the licensed work, if the performance of the licensed work or subsequent distribution of the cover version is intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation. The licensor may collect the royalties either 39 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process individually or via a performance rights society, music rights agency, designated agent or a music publisher. Under Australian law, the applicable performance rights society - the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) - cannot legally collect royalties for the exercise of the rights of communication to the public (including broad- casting) and public performance of musical works unless those rights are first assigned to APRA. APRA?s standard arrangements therefore require APRA members (who num- ber around 33,000 and include all Australian songwriters and composers whose works are used commercially) to assign all those rights to APRA. As a result, APRA members will not be in a position to use a CC licence to license others with these rights unless the APRA member has exercised their rights of opt-out (ie, by obtaining a re-assignment of these rights for particular Works or categories of Works), as per- mitted the A P R A Articles of Association. iCommons Australia intends to provide licensors with commentary which will advise APRA members not to use a CC licence unless they have exercised their opt-out rights and, if they have any doubts as to their rights, to consult APRA or a copyright professional. In Australian practice, a music publisher will individual- ly collect, or the AMCOS-ARIAIndustry Agreement is used for collection of, the mechanical rights royalties arising from reproduction of musical works in records. Under the AMCOS-ARIA Industry Agreement, a full (unpublished) member of the Australian Record Industry A s s o c i a t i o n (ARIA) may enter into an exclusive agency agreement with the applicable collecting society ? the A u s t r a l a s i a n Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS) - which appoints AMCOS to collect, on an exclusive basis, the mechanical royalties owing to the member. A g a i n , iCommons Australia intends to prepare commentary which will advise licensors who have entered into an exclusive agreement with AMCOS not to use a CC licence without first obtaining permission from AMCOS. Similarly, com- mentary will be prepared which will advise licensors of 40 iCommons at the Digital Age musical works who propose to use a CC licence that they should ensure that any arrangements they may have entered into with music publishers do not prevent them from using a CC licence to distribute their musical works. Moral rights The US version of the CC Attribution, Non-Commercial Share-Alike licence has limited provisions for moral rights. Clause 4.d provides, in effect, for a right of attribution of authorship. In the Australian version, this right has been sim- ply translated into Australian legal terms. Australian moral rights legislation (contained in Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)) gives authors the following additional rights: (a) a right not to have authorship of a work falsely attri- buted (ss 195AC ? 195AH) and (b) a right of integrity of authorship of a work. iCommons Australia considers that there are three options with regard to treatment of these rights in the licence: silen- ce, assertion of these rights or disavowal of the rights. The US version takes the option of silence (except in relation to attribution). The Canadian version takes the option of a disavowal of moral rights (by way of a waiver of moral rights). If the licence is silent on the issues of false attribution and integrity of authorship, then the last sentence in clause 3 is likely to operate to reserve those rights. It states: ?All rights not expressly granted by the Licensor are hereby reserved, including but not limited to the rights set forth in Sections 4(e) and 4(f). ? The default position, then, will be that the author is, in effect, reserving his or her moral rights. This is appears to be the current position for Australian licensors who already use the US version of the licence and for the original authors of works currently licensed under the US version. Arguably, 41 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process such a position introduces unnecessary and easily avoidable ambiguity. Moral rights can be asserted in the licences either by mir- roring the language of the Australian Copyright Act, or by explicit reference to the legislation. In the first Australian draft, the provisional position selected was to assert the moral rights existing under Australian law by mirroring the language of the Australian Copyright Act. The specific changes, made in sub-clauses 4.g and h of the first draft, are reproduced below: g. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor, if You publish, communicate to the public, distribute, publicly exhibit or display, publicly perform,or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works,You must not falsely attribute the Work to someone other than the Original Author. h. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor, if you publish, communicate to the public, distribute, publicly exhibit or display, publicly perform,or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works,You must not do any- thing that results in a material distortion of, the mutilation of, or a material alteration to, the Work that is prejudicial to the Original Author?s honour or reputation,and You must not do any- thing else in relation to the Work that is prejudicial to the Original Author?s honour or reputation. The first drafts of the UK and Canadian licence versions also chose to assert the moral rights existing under the laws of those countries. The pragmatic approach taken in the first draft of the Australian version was to maintain consistency with the philosophical position taken in the first drafts of the UK and Canadian licence versions but, consistent with the CC drafting style, to avoid statutory references that would be cryptic to laypeople or lawyers from outside the jurisdiction. Reasons, additional to those identified above, for not disavowing moral rights include the following: ? It is arguable that where the licensor is not the Original Author, a default disavowal by a copyright owner of all 42 iCommons at the Digital Age moral rights of the author will carry more risk for both licensor and licensee than a default assertion of those rights. That is, if the licensor was wrong in disavowing those rights by default, the consequences are likely to be more drastic for both licensor and licensee than if the licensor wrongly asserts those rights by default (since it seems unlikely that an Original Author would seek legal redress for a mistaken enforcement of his or her lawful rights). ? Where the licensor chooses to take measures to assure a legally effective disavowal of moral rights, the present drafting allows the licensor the opportunity to defeat the default assertion of those rights. The argument here is that if a licensor goes to the trouble of obtaining moral rights consents that are valid for the purposes of the moral rights legislation, it should be little inconvenience for them to take the extra step of positively expressing that disavowal with the licence. Whereas, if the default drafting required due diligence to confirm that a moral rights consent had been obtained and then a positive assertion of those rights if they had not been obtained, this might lead to either unreliable consents (because licensors who are not the Original Author might not bother to perform such due diligence) or to non-dissemination of the works (because the transaction cost for the licensor is too high). In August 2004, iCommons Canada decided to reverse its previous decision and expressly waive the right of integrity in the Canadian version of the licence.2 The primary reason cited for doing so was to maintain interoperability with the US version of the licence, which does not mention the right of integrity. When announcing its decision to disavow the integrity right, iCommons Canada stated that it intended to encourage CC to add integrity as an extra licence element that a licensor may elect to choose. Version 2.4 of the Canadian licence, which includes the express disavowal of the integrity right, was launched on 30 September 2004. As noted above, iCommons Australia?s analysis is that the 43 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process silence on the integrity right in the generic (US-based) licen- ce version is likely to operate to reserve moral rights under the generic licence version, if that generic licence version is used and interpreted according to the laws of places like Australia. On this analysis, iCommons Canada?s express waiver of the right of integrity appears to force a divergence between the legal effect of the generic licence version in Australia (arguably, implying a reservation of the integrity right) and the iCommons Canada version (express waiver) of the integrity right. It is important to appreciate that an express waiver of the integrity right in CC licences has strong CC community appeal, in addressing user concerns that assertion of the inte- grity right could prove to be an unjustifiable fetter on the popular adoption of the CC concept. From that perspective, it cannot be denied that choosing to expressly waive the inte- grity right in porting the CC licences has a popular appeal across all jurisdictions. There are, nonetheless, important practical issues that need to be addressed if one is to disavow the integrity right in the CC licences. The most significant is in relation to a licensor who is not the original author or creator, for example a licensor who has taken an assignment or an appropriate licence of copyright. Under Australian law, the moral rights of the author are personal to that author, so that the licensor in this situation has no right to waive the author?s integrity right under the CC licence. Rather, all the licensor can do (as a matter of law) is seek a consent from the author to acts or omissions otherwise infringing the author?s integrity rights, and ensure that the consent is in sufficiently broad terms to cover the acts or omissions of any CC licensee. This therefore means an increased practical risk that uninformed CC licensors who licence third party-sour- ced materials under a CC licence may overlook their res- ponsibility to obtain the integrity right consent from all rele- vant third parties. We do see the great value in the jurisdictions with express 44 iCommons at the Digital Age moral rights regimes maintaining a common position on the issue. Regardless of whether or not one accepts the cogency of the considerations leading iCommons Canada to adopt a position that disavows the integrity right, there are strong drivers for iCommons Australia to move from the initial drafting position - expressly affirming the integrity right - to a position that expressly disavows the integrity right (via a moral rights consent mechanism that accommodates the practical issues described above). If a policy decision is made for the default position under the Australian CC licence to be a disavowal of moral rights protection afforded under Australian law, a provision to do so should be relatively easy to include. For instance, new clauses 4.g, 4.h and 4.i could read: g. False attribution prohibited. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor, if You publish,communicate to the public, distribute, publicly exhibit or display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works in accordance with this Licence,You must not falsely attri- bute the Work to someone other than the Original Author. h. Prejudice to honour or reputation permitted. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor, if You publish, com- municate to the public, distribute,publicly exhibit or display, publi- cly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works in accordance with this Licence,You do not have to refrain from making a material dis- tortion of, a mutilation of, or a material alteration to, the Work that is prejudicial to the Original Author?s honour or reputation, or anything else in relation to the Work that is prejudicial to the Original Author?s honour or reputation, and the Licensor either (if the Licensor is the Original Author) consents to this under Section 4.i or (if someone else is the Original Author) has obtai- ned a valid written consent substantially in the terms of Section 4.i, given by or on behalf of the Original Author. i. Moral rights law consent . Except as otherwise agreed in wri- ting by the Licensor,if the Licensor is the Original Author, then to 45 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process the extent permitted by applicable law, the Licensor unconditio- nally and irrevocably consents to all acts or omissions permitted by this Licence that would otherwise infringe any rights of the Licensor under moral rights law of integrity of authorship in res- pect of the Work.This consent applies whether the relevant acts or omissions occur before or after the consent is given, and is given for the benefit of You,Your licensees and successors in title, and anyone authorised byYou or any of them to commit the rele- vant acts or omissions. Australian Critiques There are Australian observers who, whilst appreciating the middle ground of licensing that the CC project seeks to promote, have general concerns that the distinction made by the ?commercial/non-commercial uses? condition of CC licensing is too vague to be properly used by individual crea- tors, at least where they do not have the benefit of adequate guidance, advice or supervision. In this context, it is fair to observe that there has been a historical risk of individual creators (such as songwriters, composers and other artists) being unfairly exploited by other copyright stakeholders. It is this risk that supplied one of the originating justifications for the existence of copyright collecting societies, since they play an important role in ensuring that individuals creators are sufficiently educated regarding their economic rights in relation to works created by them and can, is they so wish, practically exercise those rights. It has been argued that these historical risks continue in the new on-line environments, where new business models are being developed for delivery of copyright materials. T h u s , some people in Australia have expressed concerns that CC licensors in the new on-line environment risk unintentionally and inadvertently granting away rights to non-creative users (such as music-on-hold providers, ringtone operators, narrow- casters and even pub owners) who might attempt to illegiti- mately use the rights granted by CC licences for their own commercial purposes, at the expense of the licensing creators. 46 iCommons at the Digital Age It should be noted that the critiques described above address only one of the several conditions comprised in the CC licensing scheme. Moreover, the concerns underlying such critiques can be, to some extent, addressed by drafting clarifications in licence wording and by raising the sophisti- cation of licensing creators, through guidelines and educa- tion as to the practical intent, content and effect of the CC licences. A broader answer to such critiques, though, is that the CC licences will be of primary relevance to those creators and creative works for which considerations of the creative class and free culture are predominant. For many such creators, the concerns underlying the critiques described above may well be risks that they are willing to accept, in return for the opportunities and benefits arising from participating in an open content commons. This is not to say that CC licensing of open content is necessarily inconsistent with, or funda- mentally undermines, existing mechanisms for the commer- cial exploitation of creative material. Nor is it to deny that CC seeks to expand the categories and numbers of creative classes for whom its initiatives are relevant. Rather, it is to acknowledge that there are some creative works for which CC licensing will be more appropriate than others, depen- ding on substance of the work, the objectives of the creator and the wider context and significance of the work?s use and access. Open Content Licensing in Australia CC licensing is a species of ?open content licensing?. A similar and parallel open content licensing project in Australia is the ?Free for Education? of ?FfE? licence deve- loped by the AEShareNet organisation, which enables mate- rial licensed under the FfE licence to be freely used for edu- cational purposes. AESharenet was established in 2000 and is a collaborative system owned by the Australian Education Ministers. Its primary aim is to steamline the licensing of learning materials so that they may be developed, shared and 47 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process adapted more efficiently. 3 There is much scope in Australia for the use of open- content licensing by government. In Australia, the govern- ment owns all copyright in most materials made by, or under the direction and control of, the federal or a state govern- ment. In 2003, the Australian attorney-general gave a refe- rence to the Copyright Law Review Committee (CLRC) to examine the law relating to government ownership of copy- right material. The CLRC released an issues paper on the terms of its reference in February 2004 and called for mem- bers of the public to make submissions.4 In July 2004, the CLRC released a discussion paper in order to promote dis- cussion and invite further comments on what it felt were key issues raised in the submissions.5 The CLRC is required to report back to the attorney-general by 4 December 2004. While many of the submissions focused on the issue of whether government ownership of copyright material should or should not be retained, few considered the role that open content licensing could have in the management of govern- ment owned or Crown copyright. Ten years ago the question would have simply been whether the Crown should or should not have copyright. Many advocating for no Crown copyright would have been seeking open access to informa- tion. Today however we know more about the intricacies of open content licensing. It is arguable that a broader and more robust information commons can be developed by levera- ging off copyright rather than merely ?giving away? mate- rial. To this end, we hope that the final report of the CLRC will engage with and evaluate the significance of open content licensing models (such as CC) in facilitating open access to Crown copyright. Conclusion This is an exciting time in the development of intellectual property and copyright practice and iCommons Australia is looking forward to participating in the further international development of the iCommons project. To that end, QUT is 48 iCommons at the Digital Age hosting a conference on CC and open content licensing in January 2005 to launch the Australian version of the CC licence and to help spread the word through the creative industries about this new way to promote creative innova- tion. *a Head of Law School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. *b Special Counsel, Blake Dawson Waldron, Sydney and Canberra. *c Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Technology, Information and Learning Support, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.*d Research Assistant, Law School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane..*e Lawyer, Blake Dawson Waldron, Brisbane.1 The views in this article are personal to the authors and should not be attributed to their employer organisations. References in this article to views of iCommons Australia are ref- erences to the views of the project co-leaders of iCommons Australia. In March 2004, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) exchanged a Memorandum of Understanding with iCommons as the Australian affiliate. The project co- leaders are three of the co-authors, Tom Cochrane, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Technology, Information and Learning Support, QUT), Ian Oi from Blake Dawson Waldron and Professor Brian Fitzgerald, Head of the QUT Law School.2 In so doing, iCommons Canada chose to continue to affirm the right against false attribu- tion.3 For further information, see http://www.aesharenet.com.au4 CLRC, Crown Copyright, Issues Paper, Attorney-General?s Department, February 2004, available at h t t p : / / w w w. a g . g o v. a u / a g d / W W W / r w p a t t a c h . n s f / v i e w a s a t t a c h m e n t p e r s o n a l / ( C F D 7 3 6 9 F C A E 9 B 8 F 3 2 F 3 4 1 D B E 0 9 7 8 0 1 F F ) ~ 0 + l a t e s t + i s s u e + p a p e r + U S E + T H I S + O N E . p d f / $ f i l e / 0 + l a t- est+issue+paper+USE+THIS+ONE.pdf5 CLRC, Crown Copyright, Discussion Paper for Consultation Forum, July 2004, available at h t t p : / / 1 5 2 . 9 1 . 1 5 . 1 2 / a g d / W W W / r w p a t t a c h . n s f / p e r s o n a l / 3 4 9 3 B 9 9 A 5 4 B 2 6 E 6 5 C A 2 5 6 E D 1 0 0 1D984D/$FILE/0+0+Revised+Discussion+Paper+14+July.pdf 49 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process L A U N C H I N G C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S T A I WA N : B A C K G R O U N D , E X P E R I E N C E , A N D C H A L L E N G E Shun-Ling Chen, Ty n g - Ruey Chuang, Ching-Yu a n Huang, Yi-Hsuan Lin* R?sum? Une chronologie du projet Creative Commons Taiwan jusqu?? son lancement en septembre 2004 permet de d?crire le contexte et l?exp?rience de l?introduction des licences Creative Commons ? Taiwan. Les auteurs d?crivent aussi l??volution de la loi taiwanaise sur le droit d?auteur. Le lancement de Creative Commons ? Taiwan est consid?r?e comme un succ?s, et l?organisation de cet ?v?ne- ment est bri?vement ?voqu?.Nous envisageons maintenant de tra- vailler au d?veloppement de ces licences dans le cadre de la colla- boration avec d?autres institutions gouvernementales et organisa- tions de la soci?t? civile. Abstract We give a chronology of Creative Commons Taiwan,up to its launch in September 2004,and provide the background and our experience in introducing Creative Commons licenses to Taiwan.We also give an account of the evolution of Taiwan?s Copyright Act. The launch of Creative Commons Taiwan is judged by us to be quite successful, and the planning of this event is briefly outlined in this paper. We now anticipate Creative Commons Taiwan facing the challenge of working closer with other government bodies and civil organizations in the further promotion of Creative Commons licenses in Taiwan. 51 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process Taiwan?s Copyright Act The Copyright Act used in Taiwan was first enacted in 1928, and the latest amendment to the Act was made on September 1, 2004. From 1928 to 2004, the Act was amen- ded several times in line with the trend toward international economic and trade cooperation, and especially to meet the requirements of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the World Tr a d e Organization (WTO). The most significant change was made on July 10, 1985 when the Act was amended to grant copy- right automatically to a work from the time it is created. Before this amendment, a work was only protected if it was registered with the Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs. However, the requirement to register copyright was not abolished until January 21, 1998. The change in the copyright protection period is also worth mentioning. It is often the case that the competent authority of the Copyright Act at the Ministry of Economic Affairs has faced huge pressure from the US Government, especially when draft amendments to the Act have been pro- posed to the legislature. For example, in order for Taiwan to be removed from the Special 301 Priority Watch List of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and for Taiwan to make smooth progress in the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) negotiation with the US, the Taiwanese government has made a lot of efforts, especially on copyright laws revisions, to better protect and stronger enforce intellectual property rights in Taiwan. The US Congress has repeatedly lengthened the terms of copyright. In 1790, the first US federal copyright law pro- tected the author of any book, map, or chart for a term of 14 years, plus a renewable term of 14 years. The 1976 US Copyright Act extended copyright for 50 years after the death of the creator. More recently, under the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the period of copyright pro- tection was increased to the creator?s lifetime, plus 70 years. As for Taiwan, the first Copyright Act (1928) said that copy- right lasted for the creator?s lifetime, plus a period of 30 52 iCommons at the Digital Age years from the end of the year in which he/she died. In 1992, the copyright protection period was extended to 50 years after the creator?s death. If a work is not published until 40 to 50 years after the creator?s death, the copyright period commences from the date of publication and lasts for 10 years. Although on the one hand, as some might suggest, exten- ding copyright protection can increase the motivation to create new works and protect copyright holders? rights more thoroughly, every last use of a work must be allowed by the creator (copyright holder). Furthermore, ?all rights reser- ved? has been the norm in most countries. On the other hand, the continual lengthening of the terms of copyright will gradually diminish the volume of material created, obs- truct knowledge accumulation, and harm culture and society development. The founding of Creative Commons is an explicit example of human endeavor in seeking a more rea- sonable copyright system that would help re-vitalize creati- ve activities. Open Source Initiatives in Taiwan In Summer 2002, facing increasing pressure from the legislature on the issues of free/libre open source software (FLOSS), the Executive Yuan (the Cabinet) set up a Free Software Steering Committee under the National Initiatives on Communication and Information (NICI), a strategy-plan- ning government agency, to study and address the issues. As a result, the Committee formulated a national FLOSS initia- tive, aiming to advance FLOSS development in Taiwan. The Open Source Software Foundry (OSSF) project is part of the initiative [1]. It has been carried out by the Institute of Information Science [2], Academia Sinica, since early 2003. The purpose of OSSF is to build a Web-based platform where software developers can collaboratively work on FLOSS projects. The functionalities provided by this software foundry may not be that different from those provided by Sourceforge, a popular web site for hosting 53 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process open source projects. However, OSSF provides both Chinese and English user interfaces so that FLOSS develo- pers in Taiwan can interact better with one another. OSSF also serves as a bridge connecting government, industry, community, and academia, and offers a range of FLOSS- related technical, operational, and legal assistance. Academia Sinica is a fully government-funded research institution [3]. It conducts and supports fundamental and cross-disciplinary research activities in mathematical and physical sciences, life sciences, and humanity and social sciences. There are several reasons as why the Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica (IIS/AS), a basic research institute, has been in charge of OSSF, a software development and service project. Firstly, the institute?s research necessarily involves software (in particular, FLOSS), and the institute itself often provides information technology policy advice to government bodies (e.g., NICI). Secondly, since 1998 IIS/AS has helped organize the yearly International Conference on Open Source (formerly the Open Source Workshop) in Taiwan, and is in good contact with many FLOSS developers. IIS/AS can also draw exper- tise from other institutes in Academia Sinica, hence, is able to address FLOSS issues from a cross-disciplinary perspec- tive. OSSF is comprised of 3 divisions: The Operations Division, the Technology Division, and the Law and Policy Division. The Technology Division is responsible for buil- ding the Web-based collaborative development platform. The Operations Division is in charge of the operation and promotion of OSSF. The Law and Policy Division not only analyzes various FLOSS licenses and studies related policies of other countries, but also develops strategies with the other two divisions for the promotion of FLOSS concept to the public. Soon OSSF started to notice the development of Creative Commons and the international Commons project (iCommons project). We thought it would be a good strate- gy to combine our FLOSS effort with the Creative 54 iCommons at the Digital Age Commons development. FLOSS licenses are about program code and mostly interest only software developers, but Creative Commons licenses are designed for creative works, such as web site, music, film, literature, etc. and can be more easily understood by most people. By combining the two efforts, the general public would be better informed about FLOSS issues, and FLOSS developers would have more opportunities to work with writers, artists, librarians, and teachers who are interested in open content issues. At the annual International Conference on Open Source in August 2003, the OSSF Law and Policy Division organi- zed a session on the open content issue. The broader social impact of FLOSS development was, perhaps, publicly dis- cussed for the first time in Taiwan. As well as a discussion about Creative Commons, Shulea Cheang, a distinguished net artist, was invited to present her co-curated work ?Kingdom of Piracy?, which deals with the idea of open cul- ture in artistic activities. Before the Launch At about the same time as the conference, IIS/AS and Creative Commons signed a Memorandum of Understanding and started the Creative Commons Taiwan project. With the help of the OSSF Law and Policy Division, the first draft of the Creative Commons licenses was prepa- red. However, due to some Chinese character encoding pro- blems, the required online discussion about the localized Creative Commons licenses was postponed for a while. However, Creative Commons Taiwan quickly set up a wor- king site to provide basic information about Creative Commons and stimulate preliminary discussion on the sub- ject [4]. It was not until Spring 2004 that public discussion on the localized licenses officially started. OSSF first translated the Creative Commons Licenses (hereafter: CC Licenses) into Chinese and presented the translation for public discussion via a mailing list. During the course of translation, several significant changes were 55 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process made to comply with Taiwan?s Copyright Act. The following are some examples of the changes: 1. In the preamble of the translated Creative Commons Licenses, version 2.0, which is to be used in Taiwan (hereaf- ter: CC Licenses Taiwan v. 2.0), the word ?corporation? was replaced by ?organization? because in Chinese language ?corporation? usually refers to private, for-profit firms. As Creative Commons is a non-profit body, the Chinese word for ?organization? is a better word. 2. For the following reasons, the phrases, ?public perfor- mance, public presentation, public broadcasting, public transmission, and public recitation? were used to represent ?public performance? in the CC Licenses Taiwan v. 2.0. (a) Under the US Copyright Act, the definition of ?public performance? includes public performance, public presenta- tion, public broadcasting, public presentation, and public recitation. However, according to Taiwan?s Copyright Act, ?public performance? only means to perform publicly; to present publicly, to broadcast publicly, to transmission publicly, and to recite publicly is not mentioned. (b) Article 37 of Taiwan?s Copyright Act says, ?The eco- nomic rights holders may license others to exploit their work. The territory, term, content, method of exploitation, and other particulars of the license shall be stipulated by the parties; particulars not clearly covered by such stipulations shall be presumed to have not been licensed?. Therefore, if ?perform publicly, present publicly, broadcast publicly, transmit publicly, and recite publicly? are not specifically listed, readers may think the right of public performance granted under CC Licenses Taiwan v. 2.0 only covers its lite- ral meaning. 3. To help Taiwanese licensees understand performance rights more clearly, ?BMI? and ?SESAC? were removed from the text of article 4(e)(i), and two examples of Taiwan?s performance rights groups, ?Music Copyright Association Taiwan (MACT)? and ?Music Copyright Intermediary Society of Chinese Taipei (MUST)? were used in CC Licenses Taiwan v. 2.0. 56 iCommons at the Digital Age 4. Taiwan?s Copyright Act says nothing about compulso- ry licensing of web-casting; however, article 26(3) does regulate payment of remuneration when a sound recording is played publicly. Thus, to include the complete concepts of compulsory licensing of sound recordings, the original article 4(f) of the CC Licenses was divided into article 4(f) and article 4(g) in the Licenses Taiwan v. 2.0. Article 4(f) now deals with royalties for publicly performed sound recor- dings in Taiwan, while article 4(g) is a translation of article 4(f) of CC Licenses v. 2.0. For the period from August 2003 to the formal launch in September 2004, IIS/AS and OSSF continued to develop a strategy of promoting the FLOSS issues and the open content issues together. Several preliminary promotional events showed that the strategy was quite successful. Here are two examples. 1. An anthropology and digitization project, in the National Digital Archive Program, faced many copyright issues and invited Creative Commons Taiwan to present the concept of open content and to introduce the Creative Commons licenses to its project members. The project lea- der supported the idea of open content so strongly that, when preparing for the annual conference of the project, he deci- ded to adopt the Creative Commons licenses for the confe- rence proceedings. He then formally invited all the contribu- tors, reviewers, and moderators to license the materials they prepared for the conference under the Creative Commons licenses. Creative Commons Taiwan was also invited to the conference to present the Creative Commons concept as a new licensing model. After the conference, we have answe- red many inquiries from local publishers, researchers, and educators regarding Creative Commons licenses. 2. Creative Commons Taiwan has been invited to take part in FLOSS community events to introduce the idea of open content. Of all the community events, elementary and 57 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process secondary school teachers, who have their own social net- works and practical reasons to adopt FLOSS solutions and open content ideas, seem to be the most motivated by the Creative Commons concept. Through such networks and the e ffort of FLOSS communities in schools, Creative Commons Taiwan has been invited to participate in course- ware development seminars organized by normal colleges to further introduce the Creative Commons ideas and licenses to more teachers. Besides the above 2 examples, there have also been many inquiries from individuals who have browsed the Creative Commons web site and were surprised, perhaps, to find there is an iCommons project in Taiwan. We have also made various formal and informal contacts with many individuals who have showed their interests, but the results have not been as significant as there is no existing network among those individuals for us to advance the promotion. It is noteworthy that the approach of combining both FLOSS and open content efforts is also recognized by some FLOSS developers in other Asian countries. When OSSF participated in FLOSS workshops and symposiums in Asia, delegates from other countries have often expressed their interest in our experience. It was also significant that Creative Commons Taiwan was formally launched follo- wing the 4th Asia Open Source Symposium, which was held on September 1-3, 2004, in Taipei. The launch was announ- ced to all the symposium participants and all are invited to the launch. The Launch Nearly 10 months after IIS/AS has joined the iCommons project, Creative Commons Taiwan was officially launched in Taipei on September 4, 2004, right after the 4th Asia Open Source Symposium. The chairman of Creative Commons, professor Lawrence Lessig, was present and delivered a keynote speech. Several press interviews with Professor Lessig were arranged. 58 iCommons at the Digital Age Maybe unlike other iCommons projects, Creative Commons Taiwan organized the launch as an interactive artist performance event. Creative Commons Taiwan com- missioned a song for the launch from the award-winning sin- ger Yue Hsin Chu. Chu is an icon in Taiwan?s pop music scene. The song, ?welcome to my song?, expresses the will of artists and the difficulties they faced while trying to share their works. The song itself is released under the ?Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Ta i w a n ? license. Chu and Creative Commons Taiwan worked toge- ther to produce a CC-licensed ?welcome to my song? CD album for distribution at the launch. A 40-page brochure introducing Creative Commons and CC licenses was also produced by Creative Commons Taiwan, and the copies were distributed at the launch. The CD and brochure prove to be very popular, and are to used after the launch for other promotion purposes. The covers of the CD album and the brochure are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. 59 Fig. 1. The album cover of the ?welcome to my song? music CD. The CD album was produced for the launch of Creative Commons Taiwan. (Album cover designed by Ching-I Roan) 60 iCommons at the Digital Age Fig. 2. The cover page of the 40-page Creative Commons Taiwan brochure. The brochure was produced for the launch of Creative Commons Taiwan. (Brochure cover designed by Ching-I Roan) Shoda Liu, an artist famous for his re-editing and re- mixing a commercial movie series, ?the Infernal Affairs?, into a parody series titled ?CD-PRO2?, shared with all par- ticipants the challenge he faced while proceeding a fair-use practice of this movie and how creative ideas could be stop- ped because of copyright concern. Hsueh Heng Chu, who is well-known for his Chinese translation of J. R. R. Tolkien?s ?Lord of the Ring? trilogy and currently is the major force behind the Chinese language translation of MIT?s Open CourseWare, provided a brief introduction to this project. Many law professors and intellectual property experts attended the launch event. As was just mentioned above, Creative Commons Taiwan produced promotional music 61 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process CD, brochure, and T-shirt for the launch. The Creative Commons Taiwan web site was officially announced at the launch as well. More information, in the Traditional Chinese Language, about Creative Commons and Creative Commons Taiwan, as well as the digital versions of all the promotional materials, can be found at the web site. The launch event was reported by many local newspapers and magazines, including the Chinese language version of Scientific American, and was very successful. It is worth mentioning that within just a month after Creative Commons Taiwan?s launch, a commercial CD album was released in Taiwan under the ?Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Taiwan? license. T h e album, ?Jesus Rock!!?, is produced by Yue Hsin Chu and his musical partner Hsiao Te Fu. This album is now available in many of Taiwan?s record stores. Photos of the album packa- ge, as well as the CD and license information card found inside the package, are shown in Fig. 3. and Fig. 4. Fig. 3. The album package of the ?Jesus Rocks!!? music CD. This CD album is now commercially available in Taiwan?s record stores and is released under the ?Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 2.0 Taiwan? license. (Album package designed by Pop- Music Missionary) 62 iCommons at the Digital Age Fig. 4. The CD and the license information card found inside the ?Jesus Rocks!!? album package. (CD designed by Pop-Music Missionary) After the Launch For educational and promotional purposes, the Creative Common Taiwan web site was set up and formally announ- ced at the launch [5]. This web site hosts an extensive col- lection of materials about the CC Taiwan licenses and other 63 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process resources. Some of the materials are translated from the ori- ginal content at the Creative Commons web site at the US. However, many of the materials are locally produced. It includes, for example, the complete MP3 collection of the ?welcome to my song? CD album. Fig. 5 shows a ?desktop wallpaper? image that can be downloaded from the web site [6]. Both the Taiwan and the US Creative Commons web sites now provide information about CC Licenses Taiwan v. 2.0, in both English and Traditional Chinese Languages, and in three formats (human readable/legal/digital code). Actually, both the Taiwan and US Creative Commons web sites now host the same ?select a license? service; the only difference is that the Taiwan site guides users in Traditional Chinese language while the US site guides users in English language [7][8]. Fig. 5. A ?desktop wallpaper? image that illustrates the Creative Commons idea. It can be downloaded from the Creative Commons Taiwan web site. (Graphics designed by Ching-I Roan) The Creative Commons Taiwan web site is a starting point for people who are interested in the Creative Commons ideas and licenses. It is also a focal point for the development of Creative Commons Taiwan. However, once 64 iCommons at the Digital Age we take seriously the issues of getting more people in Taiwan to know and actually use CC Taiwan licenses, it soon becomes clear that the web site alone is not sufficient. Just like Creative Commons needs the iCommons project to reach people outside of US to help seed the concept and implement the practice, Creative Commons Taiwan also needs an effective outreach plan so that the licenses can be more widely used in Taiwan. The outreach will not be suc- cessful without the help of many other people, organizations, and government agencies. With this in mind, we actually invited many key persons to the launch of Creative Commons Taiwan, and we careful- ly planned the event so that it would generate a lot of inter- est in the press. For example, we made sure the ?welcome to my song? CD album would be produced in time for distri- bution to the audience and the press. The people from the Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs (TIPO/MOEA), and from the Computer Center, the Ministry of Education (CC/MOE), are actively invited. The former agency is in charge of copyright issues and policies in Taiwan, and the later often helps initiate information tech- nology and e-learning projects in elementary and secondary schools. Legal scholars and people in the content industries are also invited. For those invitees who did not attend the launch, each of them was sent a promotional package after- ward. Judged from the reaction to the launch, we think the laun- ch is very successful. It generates a lot of interest to Creative Commons licenses. We are now in discussion with TIPO/MOEA and CC/MOE on how to further promote the Creative Commons ideas and licenses. For both TIPO/MOEA and CC/MOE, Creative Commons licenses represent new and positive thinking about the legal sharing and distribution of copyrighted work, and may turn out to be the solutions, or at least good alternatives, to their tasks at hand. For example, T I P O / M O E A can use Creative Commons licenses to educate the public on how to share content legally. It is an improvement over the usual, often 65 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process quite negative, anti-piracy campaign it runs. For elementary and secondary school teachers, they often need to produce supplemental teaching aids/materials. From CC/MOE?s perspective, Creative Commons licenses can help encourage teachers to widely share, adapt, and distribute teaching materials among themselves (without afraid of violating others? copyrights). TIPO/MOEA and CC/MOE are representative govern- ment bodies that can bring in resources, in terms of additio- nal funding and institution assistance, for the promotion of Creative Commons licenses in Taiwan. Once such govern- ment bodies start working with Creative Commons Taiwan to reach more people, however, we envision the associated coordination effort, and the execution of various educational and promotional tasks, may become an issue with IIS/AS, the current host of Creative Commons Taiwan. IIS/AS is an academic institute. It is not experienced with, nor does its mission currently include, educational or promotional duty. Academia Sinica does not offer degrees and its researchers need not teach, for example. IIS/AS may need to actively work with partner organizations, or to recruit new staff, to further promote Creative Commons in Taiwan. As such, we feel that the challenges Creative Commons Taiwan faces are just starting to unfold. IIS/AS is instru- mental in launching Creative Commons Taiwan. But when compared to the afterward task of outreach, the launch seems almost just like a simple step. Before Creative Commons licenses are making broader impact to the Taiwanese society, there remain many more steps. References [1] http://www.openfoundry.org [2] http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw [3] http://www.sinica.edu.tw [4] http://www.openfoundry.org/icommons/ [5] http://www.creativecommons.org.tw 66 iCommons at the Digital Age [6] http://www. c r e a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg . t w / p l u g i n / a t t a c h- ments/HomePage/desktop1.jpg [7] http://creativecommons.org.tw/?LicenseChoose [8] http://creativecommons.org/license/ Acknowledgment We thank Jung-Chi Chang, Vincent Yen-Chen Kuo, Ilya Eric Lee, and all the people in the OSSF team for their help and assistance. Creative Commons Taiwan will not be here without the support of Dr. D. T. Lee, the director of Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, and Dr. Jan-Ming Ho, the project leader of the Open Source Software Foundry project. * Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Nangang, Taipei 115, Taiwan 67 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process W H A T I S T H E M E A N I N G O F N O N - C O M M E R C I A L ? Mikael Pa w l o* R?sum? L?un des angles fondateurs de Creative Commons est le parta- ge de type non commercial. Lors de l?adaptation des licences au droit su?dois, on m?a demand? quelle ?tait la signification de ?non commercial?. Cette question est fondamentale pour Creative Commons mais la r?ponse s?est av?r?e tr?s complexe. Il s?agit de voir comment la d?finition juridique et la d?finition commun?ment partag?e peuvent interagir du point de vue des utilisateurs. Je me suis d?abord pos? la question gr?ce ? une contribution inti- tul?e ?Quelle est la signification de non commercial? par Rasmu s sur le blog su?dois Copy ri o t . Les blogs jouent un r?le tr?s import a n t dans l?adaptation su?doise du projet iCommons, et les blog ge rs su?- dois ont adopt? tr?s t?t les licences Creative Commons. Ils ne consti- tuent pas une population homog ? n e, et nombre d?entre eux ont choisi l?une des versions am?ricaines des licences Cre a t i v e C o m m o n s. C o py riot a pos? une question qui s?est av?r?e tr?s impor- tante et difficile ? r?soudre, qu?il importe d?investiguer en pro fo n- d e u r, pas seulement parce que les blog ge rs sont importants pour la c o m munaut? Creative Commons su?doise, mais parce que cette question a des cons?quences s?rieuses sur l?adaptation des licences C reative Commons en Su?de si elle n?est pas trait?e corre c t e m e n t . Les informations de base sur le syst?me juridique su?dois du dro i t d?auteur et le d?bat su?dois sur l?expansion de la pro p ri?t? intellec- tuelle permettent d??tablir un cadre appro p ri? pour la discussion. Background One of the cornerstones of the Creative Commons is non- commercial sharing. During the adaptation of the license 69 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process complex into Swedish law, I was asked: what is the meaning of non-commercial? The question is fundamental to Creative Commons but the answer proved to be very complex. It is a question of legal and common definitions and the interaction between them through the eyes of users. I first stumbled over the question through the Swedish blog Copyriot.1 In a submission by blog owner ?Rasmus? tit- led ?What is the meaning of non-commercial??2 Blogs are very important to the Swedish iCommons adaption, since Swedish bloggers have been very early adopters of the Creative Commons licenses. Swedish bloggers are not a homogenous population, but when it comes to licensing their content several bloggers have chosen an U.S. Creative Commons license. Copyriot posed a question which proved important and hard to answer. It was important to investiga- te it in-depth, not only because bloggers are important to the Swedish Creative Commons community, but since the ques- tion also may carry grave consequences for the legal adap- tion of Creative Commons in Sweden should it not be addressed properly. To set the proper framework for the dis- cussion, first some basic facts on the Swedish legal system in respect of copyright and the Swedish debate over the expansion of intellectual property. Copyright in Sweden The creator or author of an original, intellectual work will automatically obtain a form of protection in Sweden. This form of protection is called copyright. Copyright was in Sweden, as well as other forms of intellectual property rights, formed to create an incentive for authors to create new works. The Swedish initiative for copyright is not very different from the U.S. concept of copyright protection ?to Promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts by secu- ring for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.?, as it is stated in the United States Constitution-3 The work may in Sweden be literary, musical, artistical or otherwise an intel- 70 iCommons at the Digital Age lectual work of art. A book may be subject to copyright as well a song or a play. The form of expression does not matter in Swedish copy- right law. You will obtain protection if the work is fixed in a tangible form. Basically, if you can touch, hear or see the work, you may be eligible for copyright protection. The fixa- tion of the work does not have to be directly accessed to be eligible for copyright protection in Sweden. If the work is communicated with the help of a certain device or machine the work may still be copyrighted in Swedish copyright law. Copyrightable works include categories as: literary works, musical works, dramatic works, sculptural works, movies and other audiovisual works, sound recordings and architec- tural works. Computer works are regarded as literary works in copyright law. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by copyright law. They may instead be protected by patent pro- tection. The copyright becomes the property of the author imme- diately when the work is created in Swedish copyright law. One prerequisite for copyright protection is that the work is original. If the work is too trivial copyright protection will not be granted. Thus, the words ?hello world? is not protec- ted by copyright, while this chapter in its whole is. One simple test to see if a work is original enough for copyright protection of used in Sweden is to examine whether two individuals would come up with the exact same work should they decide to write, for example, a chapter on the meaning of non-commercial in a book released by Creative Commons. If the result is likely to be the same (i.e. ?hello world?), then the work probably should not be protected by copyright. Copyright may only be claimed by the author or individuals or entities that have derived the rights from the original author or his licensees. Copyright protection is commonly granted without prior registration. In Sweden, registration of copyright is not pos- sible. In the U.S. registration is available, but not necessary to obtain protection. Many choose to register their works to create a public record of their creation. In the U.S. registered 71 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process works are eligible for statutory damages and coverage of attorney?s fees in case of a successful litigation. Some people, both in the U.S. and Sweden choose to create a so- called poor man?s copyright. A poor man?s copyright is a simple way of obtaining evidence of first creation, being the author of a certain work, by sending a copy of the work to oneself by certified mail. Although this may be a nice piece of evidence in a court of law or in a settlement litigation, it is not a substitute to registration in the U.S. Copyrighted works are commonly protected (with some exceptions) until seventy (70) years has passed since the year the author died. This is the copyright term. Copyright is a protection which grants the author the exclusive right to reproduce to work in the form of copies during the copyright term. It is also an exclusive right to crea- tive derivative works, to distribute perform and display the work in public. The term exclusive in copyright means that the author alone may decide how the work should be exploi- ted. If someone distributes copies in other ways than the author has designated and such distribution is not within the limits of fair use or otherwise permitted by law, an infringe- ment of the author?s copyright has occurred. Such an infrin- gement may be punished with liability and damages but also through criminal charges, should the offence be great. T h e author may exercise his exclusive right to reproduce the work in form of a license agreement. The license agreement is nothing more than a contract specifying how, when and where a work may be used and copied. The license agreement is the most powerful tool in the author?s toolbox. The author may charge his audience through his license agreement, he may designate a published and he may even choose to not exercise the exclusive rights granted by copyright law. T h e author may, if he pleases, choose to stand back and offer his work freely for anyone. Why would an author choose to do that? One reason may be the moral rights. Authors create works to be rewarded. However, such a reward is not only monetary. Authors also like to be reco- gnised for their creative effort. The moral rights is an idea 72 iCommons at the Digital Age deriving from the French revolution when the concept of a ?droit moral? was introduced, dealing with this issue. The concept has nothing to do with morals, but with the personal and reputional connection between an author and his work. Or as French philosopher Bouffler puts it: ?S?il existe pour un homme une veritable proprit?, c?est sa pens?e.? In short, the moral rights are the right to integrity and the right of attribution. The right of integrity is an absolute, non-transfe- rable right to get respect for the work as such. This means that the work shall not be displayed or used in a fashion the author does not approve of, such as a musical work used in a pornographic movie. The right to attribution is a right to be named as the author of the work. Moral rights are strong in Sweden, much stronger than they are in for example the U.S. There are no legal concepts of ?public domain? or other free or open content concepts. Public domain or similar concepts may instead be achieved by using the license agree- ment. The debate in Sweden The expansion of the protection of intellectual property has spurred quite a debate in Sweden. Some even state the term ?intellectual property? is misleading. The use of the word ?property? may suggest that the works should be compared to physical property, when in fact the ownership is a state-gran- ted monopoly which is limited in scope and time. The word ?rights? are often used in Sweden in conjunction with intel- lectual property and copyright and this has also been subject of some thinking. Also the use of the term ?piracy? is discus- s e d .4 H o w e v e r, the key issue of this debate and the million- dollar question is: ?when will the protection of current works and innovations stifle the creation of new works and innova- tions?? Hence, the debate is not very different from the inter- national debate or the debate going on in the U.S. The debate is sometimes ressembling a religious debate. The scientific and empirical evidence is non-evident and a 73 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process lot of the arguments are based on logic rather than hard facts. This makes the debate hard to follow and it also puts the policy-makers in a tough spot. How should one legislate when current intellectual property owners want stronger pro- tection but such an expansion may be cannibalising on the creation of future works? To this mix of confused arguments you should add peer-to-peer filesharing and the Internet, software patentability and you end up with a highly complex picture. One separate question is also if copyright is secured for ?limited times? when works are protected for seventy years following the year the author died? When it comes to computer programs such protection is similar to perpetual protection, since the computers are developed and changed to the effect the computer programs are worthless within a few years from the release. The same arguments are some- times used for literature and other works. One way of addressing the issue regarding copyright, if you do not like the expansion of intellectual property rights, is by offering new ways of licensing content. The copyright proprietor may, as discussed above, freely decide how and when his works should be distributed. Through the free soft- ware movement a new way of looking at the distribution, development and essentially ? sharing. Free software is a matter of the users? freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.5 More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: ? The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). ? The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. ? The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). ? The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole communi- ty benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 74 iCommons at the Digital Age Free software is very simple in its construction. It uses the provisions of copyright law whereby the author has an exclusive economic right in his work. In copyright law, com- puter programs are regarded as literary works. Thus, the author of a computer program can enter into any agreement regarding his work. One such agreement is the GNU GPL. GNU GPL stands for GNU General Public License. The GNU GPL is the license agreement that implements the four freedoms above to the licensing scheme of computer pro- grams. The European debate on interoperability ended in 1991, when the European Union introduced a directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs. The directive exempts ideas underlying any element of a computer pro- gram, including its interfaces, from copyright protection. It also specifically permits disassembly of computer programs in order to achieve interoperability. Transparency is therefo- re ensured, but without access to the source code of the com- puter program it would still be hard to disassemble and inter- pret the functions of the computer programs. The GNU GPL wants to solve this by always forcing the developer to dis- close and distribute his software. Creative Commons is an online resource where authors of other works than computer programs may designate their licensing terms, in similar ways as the GNU GPL. You may for example choose that your works should be distributed freely in a non-commercial environment, while commercial distribution should be subject to your prior consent and pos- sibly a fee. Creative Commons describe its efforts like this: ?We use private rights to create public goods:creative works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends are cooperative and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian. We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them ? to declare ?some rights reserved.?6 Thus, a single goal unites Creative Commons?current and 75 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process future projects: ?to build a layer of reasonable, flexible copyright in the face of increasingly restrictive default rules.? In the light of the Swedish debate over the expansion of intellectual property rights, the interest for Creative Commons has been huge in terms of how much people com- monly are interested in license terms. Rasmus and the case of non-commercial Following this walk in the landscape of Swedish copy- right and debate over expansion of intellectual property, back to Rasmus? weblog Copyriot. One of the most popular Creative Commons licenses in Sweden, used by many Swedish bloggers, is A t t r i b u t i o n - N o n C o m m e r c i a l - ShareAlike 2.0.7 According to this license you are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and to make derivative works as long as you give the original author cre- dit, you share a like that is if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one and as long as you do not use the work for commercial purposes. Rasmus is concerned that confusion over the term ?non- commercial? used in the Creative Commons licenses will make both authors and users confused over which rights and restrictions they make part of their agreement. In version 2.0 of the license?s so-called ?legal code? (the actual license agreement) an attempt at a definition of non-commercial is introduced.8 Section 4c states: ?You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensa- tion.The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or 76 iCommons at the Digital Age private monetary compensation,provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.? This is a negative definition, limiting the scope of rights granted through the license agreement. Still, we can not be sure what non-commercial is supposed to mean. Since the term non-commercial is supposed to be used in the Swedish adaptation and translation, we need to investigate what com- mercial means in Swedish. Two methods may be used to find the meaning of ?commercial?. One is of course to find the legal definition. Another is to look for a common meaning in the Swedish language. Rasmus starts out with looking for a language definition, by looking up ?commercial? in the national dictonary Svenska Akademins Ordlista. According to the national dic- tionary ?commercial? is something that has to do with ?tra- ding?. There is also a national encyklopedia project in Sweden, called Nationalencyklopedin. According to Nationalencyklopedin, ?commercial? means something that serves the interest of profit and the word is sometimes used in a defamatory sense.9 Rasmus gives several examples of how hard it is to define what non-commercial is. W h e r e should one draw the line? One of Rasmus? many examples concerns public service television. Sweden has two major tevechannels that are held by a foundation which was ini- tiated by the state. These tevechannels may be seen by all Swedish citizens. This may sound like some country to the east of Sweden (a bit far more east than Finland, mind you), but the idea is not to carry thoughts and messages by the government but to provide Swedish citizens with PBS like material. Public service television shall be non-commercial and non-partisan. Commercial television is also available. Commercial television may not use content that is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license, that is rather evident. But may Swedish public ser- vice television do it? The commercial channels to compete with public service television over the public?s attention. F u r t h e r, commercial messages are broadcasted even in 77 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process public service, although not by using commercials, but by using ?sponsored by??billboards and product placement. Is this the kind of use that Creative Commons would like to endorse with its drafting? Probably, but I can not be certain, one is looking for a less commercial environment. Perhaps a school or a strict hobby, in the basement, not-for- p r o f i t environment. There are public schools in Sweden in all municipalities. But what about the growing sector of priva- te schools? Should the private schools, since they are most- ly founded for commercial reasons, be banned from using Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0-license con- tent, while public schools may use the works freely? Or should one distinguish between public schools and private schools founded on religous or philosophical grounds on one hand and private schools founded to make money to the owner on the other hand? Or should one focus on the use as such, instead of the environment? If the use is for educatio- nal purposes, then maybe the use is not commercial, even though the environment is a commercial surrounding? W h a t about non-profit organisations? Rasmus provides the example of A m n e s t y. Amnesty may order an expensive commercial from a production company. What if the pro- duction company uses A t t r i b u t i o n - N o n C o m m e r c i a l - ShareAlike 2.0-licensed content in the Amnesty movie? Would it make any difference if Amnesty produced the commercial in-house? I suspect that Creative Commons is trying to make sure no ?unjust? or ?unfair? use of the works will occur. I can imagine that Creative Commons? chairman professor Lawrence Lessig would suffer from severe nightmares, should for example the Disney Corporation be able to cap- ture and kidnap and make commercial use of content licen- sed as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0. Even though preventing such ?unfair? use of works may be the purpose of the ?non-commercial? clause, it is not fully clear what uses of works is restricted, as pointed out above. It is probably that from the public?s view a huge amount of uses 78 iCommons at the Digital Age shall be restricted if ?non-commercial? use of the works is prohibited. Should you for example be able to put a number of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0-licensed weblogs? RSS-feeds on a web-page packed with advertise- ments? This is a can of worms, but it needs to fully addressed. The legal definition of ?commercial? is not clear. There are not precedents where the meaning of ?commercial? has been tried. Yet. But one might suspect that the interest of profit or other market advantage will matter in a legal perspective on the word ?commercial?. However, when interpreting the license agreement, the courts will also look on what the par- ties did reasonably expect and what the circumstances concerning the formation of the contract were and how the parties have acted on the market. Hence, the word ?com- mercial? may even have different meanings in different cases when interpreting the same license. If, for example, one author tells a licensee that he may use the work for edu- cational purposes in his private school, this will make the use of the work permissable even though others should inter- pret the use as commercial use. Even though most Swedish citizens will find some com- mon ground in respect of what is commercial and what is not, it is a completely different thing to do an international interpretation. How should I interpret the term ?non-com- mercial? if the works are released on the Internet under a Creative Commons license in Australia? Another thing is that the legal and language definition will interact. As stated above, the courts will not only look for a legalese interpretation of the word ?commercial? but look at the contract situation as a whole, when interpreting the situation. Hence, both author and licensee might end up in a situation they did not expect when entering into the license agreement, should a court need to rule an interpreta- tion of the work. Over time, the legal and language defini- tion of ?commercial? will differ and parts of the legal defi- nition will melt into the language definition and vice verse. ?Non-commercial? might therefore change for already licen- 79 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process sed works, following the issue of the license and works, especially following international interaction. This creates a problematic situation for all parties. Conclusion When conducting adaptation and translation of the Creative Commons licenses cultural and language diffe- rences will appear. This may create severe discrepancies when it comes to the interpretation of the licenses. If Creative Commons is considered an international project, instead of several national projects co-ordinated under the same brand name, where content should be licensed under the same terms, even by using machines for licensing and XML-tagging instead of legal interpretation, then the Creative Commons organisation needs to find common defi- nition of central terms in the license. It may also need to have a common jurisdiction and court for all licenses to make sure that the courts will not implement different natio- nal interpretation of the term non-commercial and other cen- tral terms in the license. If you are supposed to use the works the way Creative Commons see it, creating derivative works and incorporating the works of others in your own projects, then the legal situation must be clear. It is important both to the original author and the one creating derivative works or creating collective works. The GNU project has a long tradition of handling such problems. Software code in successful GNU projects, such as the Linux kernel, has been submitted from a number of jurisdictions and nations all over the world. Still, all are using the same GNU GPL v 2. There are translations avai- lable, but as the Free Software Foundation puts it: ?Legally speaking, the original (English) version of the GPL is what specified the actual distribution terms for GNU programs.But to help people better understand the licenses,we give permission to publish translations into other languages if the translations provi- ded that they follow our regulations for unofficial translations.?10 80 iCommons at the Digital Age In the GNU project there may be confusion over how terms shall be interpreted. People may have their own view of what ?free as in free? means and it may be tried in diffe- rent courts, but you will only find one (1) text to interpret. The Creative Commons project may create a much more complex situation, when content are cross-licensed over the borders and there are even national concerns over the inter- pretation. To become really succesfull and to make authors and licensees comfortable, I presume the Creative Commons project needs to be able answer questions from Rasmus and his fellow webloggers like Tom Cruise (Kaffee) does in A Few Good Men when cross-examining Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessep)11: Col . Jessep:Are we clear? Kaffee:Yes, sir. Col. Jessep:ARE WE CLEAR? Kaffee:Crystal. * Mikael Pawlo is iCommons lead in Sweden. Pawlo has spent the last near-five years at the Swedish premiere law firm Lindahl. Today, Mikael Pawlo is general counsel for major Nordic teve production company MTV Produktion. Pawlo is contributing editor of Greplaw.org. On nights and weekends he works as an editor for the leading Swedish open source and free software publication Gnuheter.1 Copyriot is available online under: http://copyriot.blogspot.com/2 See http://copyriot.blogspot.com/2004/06/icke-kommersiellt-vad-betyder-det.html (as of September 27, 2004).3 See U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8.4 See, for example http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=192&pid=clist&fid=1&did=83 (as of September 28, 2004).5 See http://www.gnu.org/ (as of September 27, 2004).6 See http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/ (as of October 2, 2004).7 See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ (as of October 1, 2004).8 See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode (as of October 2, 2004).9 See http://www.ne.se/ (as of October 2, 2004).10 See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html (as of October 2, 2004).11 Quotes from the Internet Movie Database, see http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/quotes (as of October 2, 2004). 81 The Legal Porting and the Adaptation Process Part 2. Creative Commons Licenses and Open Governance: To Create and To Regulate 83 L A C R ? AT I O N C O M M E B I E N C O M M U N U N I V E R S E L R ? F L E X I O N S S U R U N M O D ? L E ? M E R G E N T Dani?le Bourc i e r, M?lanie Dulong de Ro s n a y * Abstract The international critique in the Intellectual Property domain is growing: rights are too strong,too exclusive (overpropertization),too difficult to manage in the digital world.Within the European Union, the French transposition draft of the 2001 Copyright Directive1 does not seem to bring a common and shared solution, notably on the implementation of the concept of ?cultural diversity?.New solu- tions must be analyzed from the point of view of various actors on the web. Debates on author rights and on-line cultural practices oppose two economic approaches: one is based on sharing, the other on the market. Cannot these two approaches be reconcilia- ted by solutions such as Creative Commons? We will see some of the main points of this debate. R?sum? Une critique internationale de plus en plus forte se d?ve- loppe autour des droits de propri?t? intellectuelle : ils sont trop exclusifs (ph?nom?ne d?overpropertization), trop nom- breux,trop lourds ? g?rer dans l?univers num?rique. Le projet de transposition en droit fran?ais de la Directive europ?enne de 20011 ne semble pas apporter une solution commune et accept?e, notamment sur la mise en ?uvre du concept de diversit? culturelle. Il faut donc analyser les diverses solutions qui ?mergent des acteurs du r?seau. Les d?bats sur le droit d?auteur et les pratiques culturelles en ligne opposent deux 85 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate approches ?conomiques: l?une est fond?e sur le partage, l ? a u t re sur l?ap p ropriation marc h a n d e. Mais ces deux approches ne peuvent-elles ?tre rendues compatibles ? tra- vers les solutions de Creative Commons ? Nous revoyons ici quelques points du d?bat en cours. Red?finir les droits li?s au domaine public et ? la propri?t? La renaissance ? travers l?Internet de la notion de patri- monialit? de la connaissance, de bien commun, de commons brouille les fronti?res traditionnelles du caract?re exclusif des droits de la propri?t? intellectuelle. Au-del?, nous sommes d?sormais engag?s dans une r?flexion politique sur la propri?t? et ses diverses d?clinaisons dans une ?conomie de march?, et en particulier sur ce qui appartient ? tous, ou ? personne : le domaine public, les parcs, les id?es, les infor- mations brutes et les formules math?matiques, le g?nome, l?eau, la culture. Appartiendraient aussi ? ces biens com- muns des droits de propri?t? intellectuelle qui ont vocation ? ?tre exclusifs mais que leurs titulaires d?cideraient d?lib?r?- ment de partager librement comme le propose Creative Commons. Actuellement de nombreuses pratiques li?es ? l?agricultu- re et ? l?environnement en France sont encore fond?es sur la notion de patrimonialit?. Le pastoralisme dans le Haut B?arn par exemple ne peut se maintenir qu?? travers ces r?gimes communautaires : les estives appartiennent ? la collectivit?, et la ? gestion ? du territoire (de l?ours notamment) est dis- cut?e dans des institutions patrimoniales o? tous les acteurs sont repr?sent?s. Ce groupe d?acteurs peut avoir des points de vue diff?rents mais doit s?entendre pour trouver une solu- tion commune : ils ont cr?? pour cela une structure origina- le, ?mergente car non pr?vue par les textes, ? l?int?rieur de l?Institut patrimonial du Haut B?arn.2 Cette notion de patri- monialit? a connu des heures plus ou moins heureuses dans l?histoire suivant que la gestion f?t bien partag?e ou non. En 86 iCommons at the Digital Age Angleterre, la fameuse ? trag?die des commons ?3 provoqua le mouvement de l?enclosure, qui conduisit au contraire ? la fermeture des terres communes au 18?me si?cle. Qui est impliqu? dans le d?bat sur l??uvre num?rique ? La notion traditionnelle de patrimonialit? va conna?tre une nouvelle jeunesse avec la diffusion des ?uvres dans l?univers num?rique. Mais la convivialit? ? bon enfant ? des d?buts d?Internet a laiss? la place ? une suspicion g?n?rali- s?e entre acteurs du r?seau. Les industries culturelles ?taient au d?part tr?s int?ress?es par le commerce qu?Internet pou- vait d?velopper. A pr?sent, elles se sentent de plus en plus menac?es par les nouvelles pratiques d??change et de coop?- ration, qui se d?veloppent plus vite que les offres commer- ciales. Mais ce ne sont pas seulement les majors qui expri- ment leur ?pret?. Ce sont aussi les chercheurs, les artistes, les cr?ateurs qui font entendre leur voix. Tout le monde veut intervenir dans le vaste forum qui reconsid?re le droit d?au- teur et le copyright dans un contexte o? les biens culturels et informationnels deviennent non rivaux ?conomiquement. Cependant avec le d?bat autour de la directive de 2001 et les derni?res actions p?nales lanc?es sur Internet, les voix sont devenues vraiment discordantes. Prot?ger l?auteur , mais contre qui ? Tout le monde est d?accord pour prot?ger l?auteur mais les moyens diff?rent. S?il s?agit de prot?ger l?auteur contre de nouvelles formes de consommation, alors mettons-le au centre du dispositif. Lorsqu?il est le titulaire des droits, c?est lui qui doit rester ma?tre de la fa?on dont il veut r?guler leur utilisation dans l?univers num?rique. On sait qu?il est de la nature d?Internet de faciliter la circulation interactive des ?uvres litt?raires, picturales ou musicales et leur r?utilisa- tion gr?ce aux techniques de citation, de collage, de sam - pling, de remix, ou de syndication. Dans ce cas, pourquoi 87 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate r?server ses droits exclusivement ? un ?diteur ou ? un pro- ducteur (sans garantie de r?mun?ration cons?quente ou de large distribution) alors que ce m?me auteur veut prioritaire- ment faire conna?tre son travail ? une communaut? fond?e sur la mise en commun et la r?putation ? Souvent, en signant des contrats d??dition, les ?crivains et les scientifiques ne savent pas qu?une cession exclusive leur interdit de diffuser eux-m?mes leur propre production, y compris sur leur site personnel. Etre prot?g? par le droit mais contre qui ? Peut- on obliger le jardinier ? clore son jardin par des haies ?paisses pour priver les promeneurs de jouir du paysage? Du partenariat au parta ge Aujourd?hui, des modes soft de confiscation se g?n?rali- sent ? travers l?appropriation priv?e des ressources collec- tives : d?l?gations de service public, partenariats entre sec- teurs public et priv? par exemple sont des instruments juri- diques utilis?s aussi bien pour construire des h?pitaux publics que pour g?rer la propri?t? industrielle n?cessaire ? la production des m?dicaments ? des prix abordables. Mais Internet est un lieu o? d?autres modes d?appropriation peu- vent ?tre explor?s : nous sommes dans une ?conomie d?abondance, les ressources culturelles et informationnelles sont immenses. Leur distribution en ligne ne n?cessite pas d?investissement particulier, les techniques de reproduction num?rique substituant aux notions de rivalit? et d?exclusion (propres aux biens mat?riels) un co?t de reproduction et de distribution quasi nul. Toutes les conditions sont r?unies pour que d?autres mod?les ?conomiques soient analys?s et que la valeur se d?place sur d?autres services que la simple fourniture de copies. La propri?t? intellectuelle n??tait ? l ? o r i g i n e q u ? u n e exception limit?e ? la libre circulation de l?art et des sciences, et elle ?tait con?ue pour prot?ger et encourager les auteurs et les investisseurs. Mais l?hypertrophie du march? colonise les ressources : l?allongement de la dur?e du droit 88 iCommons at the Digital Age d?auteur (jusqu?? 70 ans en France et en Europe) et son ?lar- gissement aux bases de donn?es, ? la demande des grands groupes de l??dition mondiale, permettent de privatiser toute une partie du domaine public et des connaissances, sans contrepartie ?vidente pour l?int?r?t g?n?ral. Les derni?res r?serves ? l?exclusivit? en faveur des consommateurs sont d?ailleurs menac?es par les producteurs. Ainsi, de r?centes d?cisions de justice4 ont condamn? l??diteur et le distributeur de CD qui, portant des mesures de protection technique emp?chant la copie, rendaient impos- sible leur consommation l?gale sur certains lecteurs. A contrario, le producteur du DVD Mullholland Drive de David Lynch qui contient un dispositif qui, n?emp?chant pas la lecture, interdit la reproduction priv?e sur support vierge, a ?t? soutenu par le juge5 qui s?est appuy? sur une doctrine d?velopp?e par l?OMPI, reprise par Bruxelles dans la Directive europ?enne de 2001. Une telle reproduction pour- rait ?porter atteinte ? l?exploitation normale de l??uvre (et) causer un pr?judice injustifi? aux int?r?ts l?gitime du titu - laire de droit ?6, au m?pris de l?exception l?gale aux droits exclusifs en faveur de la copie priv?e7, inscrite dans le droit fran?ais depuis 1957 et renforc?e en 1985 par la cr?ation d?une redevance sur les supports de reproduction destin?e aux ayants-droit. Ce glissement du droit remettant en question l?exercice de la copie priv?e, m?me dans le cas des services interactifs ? la demande depuis la Directive europ?enne de 2001, est demand? par certains groupes de pression influents, mais est-il l?gitime de l?imposer ? tous les cr?ateurs ? D?autres solutions sont-elles disponibles pour les auteurs ? Un autre mod?le : la libre expression des pr?f?rences pour le bien commun Il existe un mod?le, celui de Creative Commons, qui tente de d?passer ces deux approches ?conomiques antagonistes. Les auteurs, chercheurs et cr?ateurs sont libres de d?cider 89 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate sous quelles conditions ils veulent diffuser leur ?uvre et de choisir d?offrir plus que le minimum l?gal. Ils peuvent ainsi pr?server le droit de tous ? la copie priv?e, celui de partager des fichiers, ou de les modifier, sans pour autant renoncer au nom et ? l?exploitation commerciale. S?ils veulent exploiter commercialement leur ?uvre, en le faisant savoir ? l?acqu?- reur ?ventuel par la diffusion de ces conditions sur Internet, ils retrouvent l?exercice de leurs droits patrimoniaux tradi- tionnels. Une autre originalit? est ? pr?ciser : les termes du contrat sont li?s techniquement avec le contenu sous la forme de m?tadonn?es. Ces m?tadonn?es ouvrent de nou- velles possibilit?s en termes de fouille de donn?es puisque l?on peut interroger la liste des ?uvres CC aussi bien par les conditions juridiques de mise ? disposition que par le degr? de libert? conc?d?. Contrairement ? d?autres langages d?expression des droits8 int?gr?s dans des syst?mes ?lectroniques de gestion ou Digital Rights Management Systems plus soucieux d?ap- plications commerciales que d?une utilisation individuelle ( X r M L dans MPEG-21, ODRL dans OMA), Creative Commons s?attache ? prendre en compte et ? respecter des utilisations qui ne font pas partie des droits patrimoniaux exclusifs. Ces actes qui concernent pourtant une large partie des ?changes sur le r?seau, sont m?connus par le l?gislateur et pr?sents ? seulement par d?faut ? dans le droit de la pro- pri?t? litt?raire et artistique. Or il s?agit de points juridiques importants : le domaine public apr?s expiration temporelle, la renonciation volontaire ? exercer certains droits d?exploi- tation et les exceptions aux droits exclusifs ou fair use Les outils contractuels-types Creative Commons sont dis- ponibles sur Internet aujourd?hui pour ceux qui souhaitent d?poser leur cr?ation dans les Commons et ma?triser le degr? de ce partage, parce que chaque ?change, chaque diffusion d?une oeuvre n?a pas n?cessairement une finalit? marchande directe. La concentration de l?industrie de l?information peut ainsi ?tre temp?r?e par la ma?trise de certains auteurs sur leur production. C?est ce nouveau mod?le que chercheurs scien- 90 iCommons at the Digital Age tifiques et artistes, photographes, r?alisateurs ou musiciens sont en train d?explorer dans tous les domaines de la cr?a- tion. L?auteur est replac? au centre du dispositif de cr?ation et peut s?approprier le devenir de son ?uvre sans interm?- diaire, l?autogestion prolongeant le lien personnel direct existant entre l?auteur et son ?uvre, reconnu par le droit d?auteur continental. Optimiser la diffusion de l??uvre, avoir la possibilit? de la r?utiliser sans craindre de poursuites, r?server ses droits commerciaux, favoriser le partage et l?innovation, tout cela est conciliable ? condition de r?attribuer ? l?auteur la gestion originelle de ses droits. Un droit ouvert plus accessible Les contrats Creative Commons ne permettent pas seule- ment aux auteurs de r?cup?rer la ma?trise et la gestion de leurs droits pour choisir d?offrir un acc?s ouvert ? la culture, l?information, l??ducation, la science : ils illustrent aussi un processus complet de gouvernance ?lectronique. Les techno- logies de l?information et de la communication sont ? la fois la source et l?objet d?un nouveau droit. La diffusion de ces outils contractuels par l?interm?diaire d?une interface cognitive9 et d?un r?sum? explicatif simpli- fie l?acc?s au droit pour tous. L?existence de diff?rents contrats ? pr?t-?-porter ? illustr?s de symboles tr?s explicites permet aux auteurs de choisir facilement et rapidement entre plusieurs options, en all?geant le formalisme inh?rent aux autorisations de droit d?auteur. Simplifier le droit sans le d?naturer peut inciter ? un comportement correct juridique- ment ou m?me simplement le faciliter. Le caract?re p?dago- gique et illustr? du processus de licence s?oppose ? une gou- vernance de la cr?ation traditionnellement trop rigide, en porte ? faux avec la libert? propre ? la cr?ativit? et ? la d?couverte. La production de nouvelles versions des textes (adapta- tions nationales, version 2.0 et options correspondant ? des 91 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate besoins sp?cifiques comme ceux du collage artistique ou des pays en voie de d?veloppement) est op?r?e de mani?re ouverte et participative. Les listes de discussion autour de chaque version des licences Creative Commons ne permet- tent pas seulement d?am?liorer la compr?hension du fonc- tionnement et des diff?rentes options. Ces listes constituent aussi le support d?une participation ? la construction du droit, les sujets pouvant commenter et influencer dynami- quement les dispositions et l?esprit des contrats en faisant remonter leurs exp?riences. Tr?s pragmatiques, elles reconnaissent et l?gitiment la r?alit? des ?changes quotidiens, aujourd?hui sur des r?seaux d??change de fichiers ou par messagerie instantan?e, demain par d?autres moyens techniques de communication. Creative Commons illustre donc le principe d?un droit ?mergent souple, flexible et n?goci?, non pas en opposition mais en compl?ment d?un droit ?tatique parfois trop contrai- gnant. Ces pratiques d?autor?gulation renouvellent la ques- tion de l?effectivit? de la norme puisqu?il ne s?agit pas de contr?ler son application ni de sanctionner son non-respect. La libert? contractuelle se pose comme un rempart contre les lois et les techniques de protection qui cherchent ? r?tablir la rivalit? ?conomique des biens num?riques, et permet de r?a- liser efficacement d?autres objectifs comme l?enrichisse- ment du domaine public et la constitution d?un patrimoine commun librement accessible et partag?. Un nouveau type de gouvernance des droits sur Internet L?exemple des licences Creative Commons montre qu?in- d?pendamment des politiques publiques, des initiatives pri- v?es, par le biais de renonciations volontaires, sont en train d??tendre la notion de bien commun. Ces solutions souples seraient m?me ? la source d?un nouveau ? dynamisme ? du domaine public10. En cela, Creative Commons prolonge le mouvement des logiciels libres et open source ainsi que celui des contenus ouverts (open content), et s?inscrit dans la droite ligne de la R?solution de l?UNESCO sur l?acc?s uni- 92 iCommons at the Digital Age versel au patrimoine culturel de l?humanit?.11 Le droit d?un patrimoine commun assorti d?un libre acc?s ? l?information et aux biens publics communs s?est d?velop- p? depuis plusieurs dizaines d?ann?es.12 Les Etats y ont par- ticip? par de multiples instruments multilat?raux (Convention de 1972 sur le patrimoine mondial culturel et naturel par exemple). D?sormais cette orientation est relan- c?e concr?tement par les citoyens du web. C?est ainsi que Creative Commons a ?t? cr??, d?velopp? et finalement utili- s? par les internautes. Mais iCommons, la version internationale des licences Creative Commons, veille aussi ? respecter le droit des ?tats. On a l? une parfaite co-r?gulation par cercles concentriques. Plus de dix ?quipes, implant?es nationalement, ont actuelle- ment transpos?, dans leur syst?me juridique, l?esprit - sinon la lettre - des premiers contrats. L?esprit est d?abord le recen- trement de la r?gulation sur la libert? de l?auteur et les droits du public. Les fronti?res traditionnelles entre auteur-cr?ateur et public-utilisateur sont d?ailleurs estomp?es puisque cha- cun peut s?approprier une oeuvre dans une relation d??chan- ge et d?interactivit?, et non plus de consommation unidirec- tionnelle. Mais Creative Commons a une autre vis?e : des- serrer l??tau r?glementaire qui entoure le statut de l?auteur vis-?-vis de ceux ? qui il a confi? ses droits et responsabili- ser le public qui veut utiliser l??uvre ou y acc?der. Conclusion S?agit-il d?un nouveau ?patriotisme plan?taire?13 ? S?agit- il d?une nouvelle gouvernance sur Internet venant contreba- lancer le droit trop complexe des Etats ? Doit-on y voir un nouvel ?quilibre ou une discordance entre une globalisation des biens et un universalisme des valeurs communes ? Pourtant si des droits sont r?serv?s au nom de la propri?t? des biens, on peut aussi imaginer que d?autres droits puissent l??tre au nom du patrimoine commun et de l?acc?s universel ? la connaissance et ? la culture. 93 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate * Dani?le Bourcier est Directrice de Recherche au CNRS (CERSA- Universit? de Paris II) et M?lanie Dulong de Rosnay est responsable du projet International Creative Commons en France (CERSA- Universit? de Paris II).1 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information soci- ety, Official Journal L167, 22/06/2001 p. 0010 ? 0019.2 Dani?le Bourcier, Is governance merely a form of regulation? Balancing the roles of the State and civil society, IWM Working papers n?6/2002: Vienna.< http://www.iwm.at/p- iwmwp.htm#Bourcier> 3 Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, 162 (1968):1243-1248.4 TGI Nanterre, 24 juin 2003, Association CLCV c/ SAEMI Music France ; TGI Nanterre, 2 septembre 2003, Madame F.M. et UFC Que Choisir c/ SA EMI Music France et St? Auchan France ; TGI Paris, 2 octobre 2003, CLCV c/ BMG France ; TGI Paris, 2 octobre 2003, CLCV c/ Sony Music Entertainment France ; CA Versailles, 30 septembre 2004, SAEMI Music France c/ Association CLCV.5 TGI Paris, 30 avril 2004, M. St?phane P., UFC Que Choisir c/ SAFilms Alain Sarde, SA Universal pictures video France et autres.6 Article 9.2 de la Convention de Berne pour la protection des oeuvres litt?raires et artis- tiques.7 Articles L. 122-5 et L. 21 1-3 du Code de la propri?t? intellectuelle.8 Karen Coyle, Rights Expression Languages ? A Report for the Library of Congress, February 2004 http://www.loc.gov/standards/Coylereport_final1single.pdf9 M?lanie Dulong de Rosnay, ? Cognitive interfaces for legal expressions description - Application to copyrighted works, Online sharing and Transactions ?, JURIX 2003, Legal Knowledge and Information systems, Dani?le Bourcier (ed.), Amsterdam, Ios Press, 2003 pp. 121-130.10 Voir ? ce propos les approches ?conomiques a priori paradoxales : Robert Merges, ? A new dynamism in the public domain? 2004, 71, University of Chicago Law review, 183 (sur Creative Commons).11 R?solution 41 adopt?e par la Conf?rence g?n?rale de l?UNESCO sur le Rapport de la Commission V ? la 26 ?me Rencontre pl?ni?re, 17 novembre 1999 ainsi que la contribution de C. Maxwell, Global Trends that will impact Universal Access to Information Resources, soumise ? l?UNESCO le 15 juillet 2000 http://www.isoc.org12 Elizabeth Longworth, The Role of Public Authorities in Access to Information: the Broader and More Efficient Provision of Public Content, Proceedings of UNESCO?s INFOethics 2000 Congress on the Theme ?Right to Universal Access to Information in the 21st century ? http://webworld.unesco.org/infoethics2000/report_2_131100.html#longworth13 M. Delmas-Marty, Les forces imaginantes du droit. Le relatif et l?universel, Paris, Seuil, 2004 p. 400. 94 iCommons at the Digital Age L E G A L M E TA D A T A , O P E N C O N T E N T D I S - T R I B U T I O N A N D C O L L E C T I N G S O C I E T I E S He rkko Hi e t a n e n*, Ville Ok s a n e n** R?sum? Cet article d?crit l?impact ?conomique des m?tadonn?es juri- diques et du contenu ouvert dans la soci?t? de l?information. L?article analyse aussi les d?fis que posent les m?canismes indivi- duels et ouverts de licence num?rique aux soci?t?s de gestion col- lective. Dans la premi?re partie, nous d?finissons les concepts de contenu ouvert et de m?tadonn?es juridiques. Dans la seconde partie, nous nous concentrons sur les aspects ?conomiques des contenus ouverts et les changements introduits sur le fonctionne- ment des communaut?s cr?atives. La troisi?me partie d?crit le sys- t?me europ?en de gestion collective et la mani?re dont leur posi- tion dominante sur le march? emp?che les auteurs d?utiliser les m?canismes de licence de contenus ouverts. Abstract This paper describes the economic impact of legal meta- data and open content in information society.The paper also analyses the challenges that individual digital open licensing poses to collecting societies. In the first part we define open content and the meaning of legal metadata. In second part of the paper we concentrate to the economics of open content and how it changes the way creative communities work. In third part we describe the European collective societies sys- tem and how they use their dominant market position to block authors from using open content licensing. 95 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate Introduction The world of (popular) culture is currently living exciting times. More and more content is created by non-professional authors with the aid of personal everyday devices. Camera phones and cheap digital cameras combined with powerful personal computers make it easy for general audience to pro- duce digital content. Similarly the advances in different cate- gories of the music making software have opened the world of studio quality sounds to amateurs. Homemade movies are quickly reaching and exceeding the level of special effects that the big Hollywood studios used to have only one deca- de ago. Internet and P2P-networks offer cheap and perhaps more importantly, global channel for distribution. As the results we are currently living the era of democratisation of mass culture. While producing this content is technically easy, the same cannot be said about the legal side. This is especially true for copyright even if the basics of copyright are actually relati- vely simple: it is a group of rights granted exclusively to author of creative work; these rights include the right to make copies of the work, make alterations or derivative works, publish, present and perform the work and change the format of the media it?s saved; copyright is exclusive, anyone who wants to utilize the right of the copyright holder needs to get permission ? license- from the copyright holder. The problems start to arise while reusing and mixing existing material for derivate products. How much can be added? How the author should be mentioned or compensa- ted? The list of open questions looks suddenly long and scary. It does not help that writing a good and clear copy- right license can be extremely demanding work. Copyright licenses are normally negotiated and written by highly spe- cialized group of lawyers and even these people make mis- takes. Also, using specialists means extensive fees, which are typically out of the reach of ordinary citizens. Luckily there is a solution. Licensing transaction costs can be lowered by automating the licensing procedure as far as possible. Albeit the licenses are expensive to write, they 96 iCommons at the Digital Age can be used over and over again with minor modifications. These modifications can be done automatically by a licen- sing engine. This way the licensing can be fixed to the work- flow. Research on automated copyright systems has concentra- ted to Digital Rights Management systems (DRM). Digital Rights Management involves the description, layering, ana- lysis, valuation, trading and monitoring of the rights over an enterprise?s tangible and intangible assets. DRM systems define the way how the content can be used and protects the content so that it can?t be accessed or used against the terms of use. There has been a problem of implementing secure DRM systems and consumer acceptance has prevented the wide use of DRM systems. Many have seen DRM as a solu- tion for illegal file sharing. With DRM systems contents pro- ducers can exclude customers who don?t pay for the license. Without excludability, the relationship between producer and consumer becomes more akin to a gift-exchange rela- tionship than purchase-and-sale one. When commodities are not excludable, people simply help themselves.1 Or as Barlow and Brand have stated: ?Information wants to be free?. DRM systems don?t serve the free flow of information because they are designed to limit it. While content production was in the hands of professio- nal artist and authors, the incentive for creating and distribu- ting the content was mostly economic. Artists typically need time, extensive training and expensive equipment to produ- ce their work. They need to get compensation from their works just to be able to continue their profession. Amateur authors have different motivations. They usually don?t have training nor do they need expensive materials to create their art. New technology has made it easy and cheap to produce high quality material which was just ten years ago solely created by professionals. Amateurs and hobbyists have proved that they can pro- duce valuable content. GNU Linux operating system and Mozilla web browser are good examples of community pro- duced premium products. They have proved that open and 97 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate non-commercial communities can produce the same level of quality or even higher than proprietary companies. Hackers who want to share their code with the world have used free and open source licenses as their tools. Recently the open- ness has spread to distribution of other kind of content. Open content movement is devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others to build upon and share. This article briefly describes the primary tool ?metadata? that open content uses for digital distribution. Second part presents the economic rationale of why legal metadata should be used and how open content distribution balances copyright as an exclusive right. We also describe Creative Commons (CC) which one of the most prominent open content licensing systems. Given that open content distribu- tion might be beneficial to authors, why aren?t the biggest right holders, collecting societies, using it? Third part exa- mines how collective rights management relates with open content distribution. It tries to give answers to what collec- ting societies role should be in the future. Open content and legal metadata Open content can be shortly defined as creative work that comes with a license which explicitly allows reproduction and distribution. Works must be in a format that explicitly allows the copying and distribution of the information. Public domain works are also open content. In digital environment it is possible to attach a license into a work. Licensing information is part of metadata that describes the content. W3c Glossary defines metadata as: ?Data about data on the Web, including but not limited to authorship, classification, endorsement, policy, distribution terms, IPR, and so on.? Metadata can hold pricing informa- tion, author info and licensing terms. Most of the new music, image and text formats have a reserved field for metadata. Metadata can be easily attached and read from mp3, PDF, mpeg4 and HTML files. Attaching metadata which describes the works copyright 98 iCommons at the Digital Age status is called Digital Rights Expression (DRE). DRE uses Rights Expression Language REL to let users know of the permission that the users have. Rights Expression Language is a language for specifying rights to content, fees or other consideration required to secure those rights and other asso- ciated information necessary to enable e-commerce transac- tions. Unlike the most Digital Rights Management (DRM) and enforcement systems, Digital Rights Expression doesn?t include technical means to restrict users from violating license terms. One of the most used metadata framework is W3C?s Resource Description Framework (RDF). It provides a foun- dation for processing and exchange of machine-understan- dable information on the Web. RDF can be used for catalo- guing (to describe the content which is in digital form on a web page, digital library or at p2p network), resource disco- very (for example to let search engines search for works that have certain licenses), and by intelligent software agents (to facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange, in content rating).? The Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Initiative is an international effort aimed at developing and promoting an open standard for the Digital Rights Management expression language. ODRL does not enforce or mandate any policies for DRM, but provides the mechanisms to express such poli- cies. Because ODRL was designed to serve traditional DRM system it isn?t suitable for pure digital rights expression. ODRL has started Creative Commons profile working group which aims to develop an extension of the ODRL REL to capture the semantics of the CC licenses. The purpose is to enable the use of the ODRL REL - with all its advanced fea- tures and facilities - to express the CC licenses. Economics Attaching DRE information serves many purposes for open content distribution. The main economic factor for using DRE is the significant lowering of the transaction 99 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate costs and more generally information costs. DRE allows also some new business models, which are bound to change the way the content industry works. Though, many of these business models rely heavily on DRM and thus are not in the scope of this article. Transaction costs are typically divided into three catego- ries. Search and information costs These occur while looking for the party, which could offer the requited good. Also the costs of evaluating the pos- sible goods typically belong to this category. Bargaining costs These are born while negotiating the agreement with the possible party. Attorney fees and time used to negotiation belong to this category Policing and enforcement costs These costs take place after the contract is accepted by the parties. Monitoring the compliance and taking actions against possible contact violation cause most the costs in this category.2 The less valuable the trade is, the more important it is to keep the transaction costs low. The real challenge is the com- bination of low costs and high volume. DRE is among other things a mean for this end. In case of the digital content dis- tribution, the value of single transaction is on average very low. There are of course significant exceptions. Negotiating a distribution deal for Madonna?s new song requires totally different level of attention than using a song as part of PowerPoint presentation given in a K12-school. DREs are most effective lowering the transactions costs in two first categories. Unless DRM or watermarking is involved, they really don?t have that much of effect on the enforcement costs. 100 iCommons at the Digital Age DREs are designed to be searched and interpreted by computers. This means that it is very easy to configure the search engines to find content, which fits to the needed requirements also in legal sense. This can bring down the cost of search ten to hundred-fold compared to the situation, in which there is no such service available. DREs typically include information about the owner of the content. This makes is easier to actually locate and contact the owner if the planned use of the content is not in the scope covered by DRE (e.g. using the music in a blockbuster movie). DREs don?t entirely solve the problems related to search and information costs. One big question is, can the buyer actually believe that the information is up-to-date and cor- rect. So far there has been little work done on building the trust-systems into DREs. Negotiations are typically the most expensive part of the trade. In mass markets this has been traditionally solved by using standard agreements, which are not tailored separately for each of the transactions. The buyer has two options i.e. take it or leave it. This model is also in use for today?s com- mercial digital content distribution. For example iTunes sells their songs with single license agreement. It is also good to notice that the collecting societies offer this kind of service for commercial content for certain kinds of digital distribu- tion (e.g. Web radios). DREs offer a simple and effective way to describe to the buyer what he can get and they basically play the same role as traditional mass agreements have played before. Sometimes additional negotiations are needed. For example, getting some guarantees (or even insurance) from the seller that he really has the right he is proposing to give the distri- buted material is sometimes needed. This raises inevitably the transaction costs but on the other hand happens probably only in cases, where licensing is only small part of the total costs. Metadata can also include pricing to various uses. This helps to segment markets and can be used easily on price discrimination. Same product can be sold with different 101 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate licensing terms to different groups. Consumers are in most cases happy with ?use only? license. Content producers need a permission to make derivative works, distribution rights and right to make copies of the work. Pricing serves diffe- rent groups and helps rights holder to reap more profits from the content than from the static pricing. Predefined dynamic pricing lowers transaction costs because less bargaining is needed. Internet creates some problems for dynamic pricing. It is not easy to get information about person?s identity. Thus a seller, which offers cheaper price for students, may be sur- prised how many students there are among his or her custo- mers. Open content and metadata Most of the previous arguments are true for Open Content distribution. In fact, very low transaction costs are absolute- ly indispensable for an environment, in which the value of single transaction is minuscule. Traditionally this possible market failure3 has been partly bypassed in legislation by using the restrictions of copyright (in Europe) or fair use doctrine (United States). Unfortunately danger of sanctions for infringement has made this approach too risky in current heavily sanctioned Internet environment and thus the clear- ly defined Open Content opens possibilities for projects, which would be otherwise economically infeasible. In Creative Commons (CC) special attention has been given to the ease of use. Creative Commons provides a simple user interface, where licensors can tailor an open content license that suits their needs. Distinguishing between three different license types (lawyer, machine and human readable) gives reasonable level of details for different users groups with different needs. As a result the process to get a license is very swift i.e. the cost is very low for the person getting the license. This means that works, which wouldn?t be otherwise licensed, will be licensed. Another very important and unique feature of the CC is the level of standardization it has been able to achieve as the 102 iCommons at the Digital Age de-facto license for Open Content distribution. This brings down the transaction cost in two ways. First, people are already familiar with the licenses, which mean that they don?t have to spend time to read the text. Second, the authors and users alike are able to trust the quality of the licenses, because they are carefully reviewed. Most likely the licenses will be also tested in court one day and thus get additional validation. This all adds to the legal predictability and thus boost the transactions. Collecting Societies and open content Stanford University?s law professor Lawrence Lessig describes Creative Commons as a complement rather than replacement of the current copyright system.4 C r e a t i v e Commons uses copyrights in creative way. While CC is compatible with copyright system, it isn?t compatible with some of the other systems that are based on copyright. One of the biggest mismatches of Creative Commons is with col- lective copyright licensing and collecting societies. Licensing of literal and artistic works is a complex task. Individual authors haven?t traditionally handled copyright management, except for some computer hobbyists. Publishers and collecting societies have helped authors to take care of the licensing and the collection of license fees. Authors have a lot better bargaining power with publishers than with collecting societies. Open content publishing has seen few successful titles like award-winning Sci-fi author and copyright activist Cory Doctorow?s first novel ?Down and out in magic kingdom?5 and Lawrence Lessig?s ?Free culture? that have sold several printed editions, albeit the books are available online for free. Later on this article concentrates only to collecting societies. Collecting societies? role Collecting societies are collective managers of authors? copyrights. Collecting societies are organized mostly as 103 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate association or societies. Authors and right holders are obli- ged to transfer their rights to a collecting society when they decide to join it. After that only collecting society can 1) transfer non-exclusive rights for the use of works; 2) collect authors?royalties; 3) distribute collected royalties to authors; and 4) enforce authors? rights before courts. Collective society gets a mandate every year from its members to licen- se their works for users in predefined terms. The content of the mandate is decided among the members and its terms are imposed on every member. In general, each national collec- ting society for authors? rights holds a de facto monopoly in its territory, where practically all significant composers? and songwriters? are members of the organization.6 What about if a copyright holder decides to license his works with Creative Commons-licenses before he joins a collecting society? Some of the European countries have given collecting societies authority to collect royalties even for non-members. If they want to relinquish the royalties, they have to do it in a written form to a collecting society. Creative Commons licenses are perpetual for the duration of copyright in the work.7 Author, copyright holder or col- lecting society can?t revoke the license. Eventually collec- tion society will have Creative Commons content in their catalogue, which can be used with CC licenses or with the terms that the society poses. If the user has a CC-licensed copy of the work he can use it according to the license terms. Collecting society can also distribute the work with more restricting license. Monopoly of collecting societies and antitrust regulation Strong role of collecting societies as the protectors of authors? interests has been easy to defend in the past. Collecting societies were a parallel phenomenon to labour trade agreements and labour unions. Their ratio was to crea- te balance, cut extravagant and exploitative licensing clauses and lower transaction costs. The era of vast trade unions seems to be in the past, because the role of smokestack- 104 iCommons at the Digital Age industry diminishes. Collecting societies are relics from the bygone days of strong industry cartels. Later transaction costs have been emphasised while they have been too high for individual authors to negotiate licenses and collect licen- sing fees themselves.8 Saves in administration costs and the ease of making copyright use reports to one organization have led to a situation where in Continental Europe mono- poly positions of collecting societies are rather the rule than the exception. Monopoly status has been beneficial not only to authors and right owners but also to users. In many cases the law requires efficient administration of rights in order to obtain authorisation for the society. This has excluded autho- risation of competing collecting societies.9 It has also led to a situation where authors can?t choose competing society if they don?t like the terms of the membership. As in all intellectual property rights regulation, antitrust and competition law control is present. The control aspect must be taken into account, since collecting societies often act on the basis of monopoly positions. Competition law limits collecting societies? hands. They can?t license domes- tic music with different terms than foreign music. It also means that the fees must be discriminatory for everyone. It doesn?t mean that collecting societies couldn?t grant free licenses to public at large. The Santiago Agreement is an agreement signed by seve- ral collecting societies. It provides that users of online ser- vices should obtain a license for the music repertoire of all collecting societies participating in the Agreement from the collecting society of their Member State. The license would be valid all over Europe. However, since the Santiago Agreement insists that companies wishing to purchase music rights do so from a collecting society in their own country, the Commission sees that the system is anti-competitive. The European Commission has opened proceedings against sixteen European collecting societies in the field of music copyrights. A company looking to sell music online should be allowed to purchase rights from any licensing body in the EU rather than from only the domestic body that sells rights. 105 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate The opening of proceedings against European collecting societies on the subject of the Santiago Agreement is another measure of the European Commission to break down the monopolies of national collecting societies and to create competition in the field of collective management of copy- rights. The Commission also considers that online-related activities must be accompanied by an increasing freedom of choice by consumers and commercial users throughout Europe as regards their service providers, such as to achieve a genuine European single market.10 If the ?one stop shop? would be implemented, the collecting societies could com- pete with online licensing terms and policies. The lack of competition between national collecting societies in Europe is one reason of unjustified inefficiencies as regards the offer of online music services. Internet has shown marks of the birth of collecting socie- ty competition. Magnatune is an online record label that uses Creative Commons licenses for publishing downloadable audio content. Companies like Magnatune that are compa- tible with Creative Commons system have created business logic that uses Internet as a marketing tool. All their songs are available for downloading with A t t r i b u t i o n - NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC license. Magnatune creates revenues by selling licenses for commercial use, physical records and high fidelity music files. The licensing procedu- re is fully automated. Licensee has to fill in information about the intended use and the licensing system calculates the license price. Half of the revenue goes to the artist. In Finland collecting society?s administrative fee is less than 15 percent of the royalty revenues. Still Magnatune managed to pay more (about 1500 $, Buckman 2004) to its average artists in a year, than Finnish collecting society Teosto dis- bursed to their average member (990 E, Teosto 2004). Solutions for copyright societies to adopt open content 673 artists out of 15 327 received more than 5000 euros compensation from Teosto during the year 2003. At the same 106 iCommons at the Digital Age time half of the customers didn?t receive any royalties. Collecting societies should make a difference between popu- lar and less popular works: the vast majority of works whose rights are managed by collecting societies and publishers have a very short, if any, commercial lifespan. Getting this content to distribution for non-commercial use would bene- fit users and create demand for commercial use. This way the commercial lifespan of the work would be longer. It is difficult to argue why a collecting society should make the Internet as a marketing and distributing medium so difficult to use.11 Mark Nadel (2004) also comes to a conclusion that ?copyright law?s prohibition against unauthorized copying and sales may, counter to the law?s purported goal, have an overall negative impact on the production and dissemination of creative content?. This brings us to the practical question of how could one apply more liberal licenses such as Creative Commons to already published works at the societies? catalogues. First option would be for publishers and collecting societies to change their policies. Typically the author transfers to his publisher (in the case of music and books) or copyright col- lecting society all transferable economic rights. After the transfer, single author is unable to influence to licensing policy which means that re-license with CC is impossible. Second option would be to force policy reforms on col- lecting societies. Free uncontrolled distribution of some of the collecting society?s work would hinder other members? profits. Free in this case means also terms that also allow free commercial use. Handling reports of free use of catalo- gued content would eat collecting societies? r e s o u r c e s without providing administrative overheads. If the freedom would only stretch to free non-commercial distributing, the commercial use would create profits and benefit the collec- tion society at large. Forcing copyright societies to allow right holders to decide of licensing their content to free dis- tribution would serve the general ratio of copyright protec- tion. This could help to solve central problem in copyright law; correcting the balance between public access and 107 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate a u t h o r s ? i n c e n t i v e s .1 2 Free distribution would raise the demand of distributed works, because it would act as mar- keting tool. 13 The public would have free access to works and right holders would still get compensation for commer- cial use of works. After saying this, it should be emphasised that the final decision of letting the works to free distribution should lie on the rights holder. Unless it is highly probable that distribution licensing would make a strong business case for a given work, the default action should be to licen- se it for free non-commercial distribution.14 Collecting society could register the open content works and provide a verification server for checking that content is open. This way people who want to use and distribute music can avoid infringements by verifying right holder?s permis- sion from the collecting society. Users would be used to legal metadata and educated to respect copyrights. Verification server could also include pricing information of the commercial rights, peer evaluation of the music, recom- mendations links to similar music and an ecommerce site where commercial rights would be for sale. Third option would be to develop the copyright law in a way that the author can get his copyright back in limited cases for re-licensing under reasonable circumstances. Germany has recently enacted a law on copyright contracts with an intention to balance the negotiation power between individual authors and publishers.15 Under certain condi- tions, it is even possible for an author to terminate the publi- shing contract and republish the work under new terms. ? Such an exception in copyright law is not necessarily a good idea, though. It would only hurt more liberal licensing sys- tems if it could also be possible to withhold from ?CC-publi- shing contract? for example because the public has too much power over the work and because the license is perpetual.16 Conclusions Legal metadata defines the rules for the use of content and the rights involved. Open content distribution by defini- 108 iCommons at the Digital Age tion requires legal metadata. Creative Commons is one of most sophisticated freely available open content licensing tool. Legal metadata helps to lower transaction costs and bene- fits the right holders and content users. Lowered transaction costs can make even low value transaction possible. Metadata also enables dynamic pricing and smart content searches. Digital distribution has changed the prerequisite for col- lective rights management. Individual licensing should co- exist with collective management with in the collection societies. There are no technical obstacles for right holders to exercise some of the individual rights while being a mem- ber of collection society. Legislators should encourage com- petition and cross border compatibility. One can easily ima- gine cases where more liberal licensing should be beneficial. Benefit to society is larger when the works in question have little commercial value and high cultural significance. The final decision of opening the content must be in the hands of the right holder of the work. References Buckman John; Magnatune, an Open Music Experiment, Linux journal Issue 118, February 01, 2004, http://linuxjour- nal.com/article.php?sid=7220&mode=thread&order=0 Burk, Dan L., Muddy Rules for Cyberspace. http://ssrn.com/abstract=204188 DeLong Bradford, Froomkin Michael; Speculative Microeconomics for Tomorrows Economy in: Internet publi- shing and Beyond, ed. Brian Kahian and Hal Varian, pp. 6- 45 Cohen, Julie E., ?Lochner in Cyberspace: The New Economic Orthodoxy of ?Rights Management??. Michigan Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, 1998 http://ssrn.com/abs- tract=128230 Dietz Adolf; Legal regulation of collective management of 109 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate copyright (collecting societies law) in western and eastern Europe, Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., Summer, 2002. pp. 817-916 Doctorow Cory; Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Tor Books, 2003. http://www.craphound.com/down/ European commission press release; Commission opens pro- ceedings into collective licensing of music copyrights for online use, IP/04/586, Brussels, 03.05.2004 h t t p : / / e u r o p a . e u . i n t / r a p i d / p r e s s R e l e a s e s A c t i o n . d o ? r e f e r e n- c e = I P / 0 4 / 5 8 6 & f o r m a t = H T M L & a g e d = 0 & l a n g u a g e = E N & g u iLanguage=en Fisher William; Promises to Keep, Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment, Stanford University Press 2004 Gordon, Wendy. Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and Its Predecessors, 82 Columbia. Law Review. 1600. 1982. Gordon, Wendy J.; Excuse and Justification in the Law of Fair Use: Commodification and Market Perspectives (January 2002). Niva Elkin- Koren & Neil Weinstock Netanel, eds.; The commodification of information, Kluwer Law International, 2002. http://ssrn.com/abstract=293690 Ku, Raymond Shih Ray; Consumers and Creative Destruction: Fair Use beyond Market Failure, 18 Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, 539 Landes, William, Posner, Richard; ?An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law?, Journal of Legal Studies 18, 1989, pp. 325?363 Landes, William M., ?Copyright, Borrowed Images and Appropriation Art: An Economic Approach? (December 2000). U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 113. Lessig Lawrence; Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity, Penguin Press, 2004 110 iCommons at the Digital Age Magnatune record company?s website: http://www.magnatune.com Nadel, Mark S.; How current copyright law discourages creative output: the overlooked impact of marketing, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, spring, 2004, pp. 785- 855 Oberholzer Felix, Strumpf Koleman; The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales, An Empirical Analysis, March 2004 ODRL Creative Commons working group http://odrl.net/Profiles/CC/ Teosto annual report 2003 (in Finnish) h t t p : / / w w w. t e o s t o . f i / t e o s t o / w e b p a g e s . n s f / d 0 e 3 e 2 0 0 7 3 5 8 6 3 a 3 c 2 2 5 6 5 4 0 0 0 < < e 5 c f / 3 1 4 9 2 5 e 2 6 4 5 5 c 1 9 e c 2 2 5 6 e 3 0 0 0 4 d b 2 d e / $ F I L E / To i m i n t a k e r t o m u s % 2 0 2 0 0 3 . p d f ! O p e n & H i g h l i g h t = 0,toimintakertomus Vinje Thomas C., Paemen Dieter, Romelsj? Jenny; Collecting society practices retard development of online music market: a European perspective Computer and Internet Lawyer,December, 2003 V?lim?ki Mikko, Hietanen Herkko; Challenges of Open Content Licensing in Europe, unpublished paper W3C technical note: Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Version 1.1. http://www.w3.org/TR/odrl/ * Herkko Hietanen, researcher, LL.M., Helsinki Institute for Information Technology, P.O. Box 9800, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland, Email: herkko.hietanen@hiit.fi** Ville Oksanen, researcher, LL.M., Helsinki Institute for Information Technology, P.O. Box 9800, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland, Email: ville.oksanen@hiit.fi1 DeLong, Froomkin p. 11. 2 See Ku (2003), Cohen Burg (2000), Cohen (1998) for the development of the recent dis- cussion. Even if transaction costs form the basis of Coarse theorem, he has not actually coined the term. 3 E.g. Gordon (1982), Gordon (2002), Landes (2000).4 Lessig (2004).5 The book was downloaded over 20,000 times, 24 hours after launching the site: 111 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate http://www.craphound.com/down/ from where the novel is available for downloading for free.6 Vinje, Paemen, Romelsj? p. 16.7 Creative Commons license term 7b.8 V?lim?ki, Hietanen.9 Dietz p. 905.10 The European Commission press release.11 V?lim?ki, Hietanen 2004.12 Landes, Posner, p. 326. 13 Oberholzer Felix, Strumpf Koleman.14 V?lim?ki, Hietanen 2004.1 5 Gesetz zur St?rkung der vertr?glichen Stellung von Urhebern und aus?benden K?nstlern, 22.03. 2002, BGBl I, 1155-1158.16 V?lim?ki, Hietanen 2004. 112 iCommons at the Digital Age O P E N S O U R C E . L A W Ma rcus Born f re u n d* R?sum? Cet article explore quelques r?flexions qui ont ?merg? de la participation de l?auteur dans le projet iCommons Canada pendant la p?riode 2003-2004.Le but du projet est le d?veloppement d?un contrat de copyright universel (par l?interm?diaire d?une synchroni- sation nationale ou locale). Tous les contrats Creative Commons sont con?us pour ?tre utilis?s par des cr?ateurs num?riques venant de lieux g?ographiques disparates d?sirant proposer leur ?uvre dans le domaine public en ligne. Le projet a ?t? port? par les juristes, ?tudiants ou autres personnes int?ress?es. L?exp?rience r?cente de transposition des contrats Creative Commons am?ri- cains dans les Creative Commons canadiens illustre la valeur de la production partag?e, fond?e sur les Commons, au regard du d?ve- loppement des textes juridiques comme les contrats, les docu- ments, les statuts et m?me la jurisprudence elle-m?me. Abstract This article will explore some of the author?s insights ari- sing from his participation in the iCommons Canada project during the time period SEP 2003-2004, inclusive.The project?s goal is the development of a universal copyright licence (by way of domestic synchronization). The Creative Commons suite of copyright licences are designed for use by geographi- cally-disparate digital creators wishing to contribute their (non-software) works to the online public commons.The pro- ject was carried out by lawyers,students and other interested persons. Canada?s recent experience porting the Creative Commons (cc) licence into a Canadian (cc-ca) version illumi- nated the, hereto untapped, value of commons-based peer- 113 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate production with respect to the development of text-based legal products such as licences, documents, statutes, or even caselaw itself. The collaborative nature of legal peer-production brings to mind the practices of the ?open source?, or ?free?, software community who have been very successful in applying open source methodology to the production, and maintenance, of computer software. The term ?open source? is broadly understood to refer to a community-centric framework which advocates sharing of information and the collaborative development of information-based products of all mediums and genres.Based on empirical evidence with respect to text- based open source products,eg.Creative Commons Canada?s success with drafting and reviewing the cc-ca licence, there is every reason to believe that this methodology will map well onto the practice of law. In exploring this thesis,technologies that enable commons- based peer production of text-based legal products will be briefly introduced. Both the computer applications used to create the products and the communication tools used to share and transform them will be investigated.The application of these techniques and technologies culminate in the author?s proposed practice of opensource.law. A website aimed at supplying the resources facilitate the understanding of opensource.law and the infrastructure necessary for sup- porting its practice, are currently under development at time of printing.1 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Canada licen- ce. See licence terms and conditions at http://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ca/ 114 iCommons at the Digital Age You will search, babe, At any cost. But how long, babe, Can you search for what?s not lost? - Bob Dylan, I?ll Keep It with Mine Fr ee/Libre Open Source Softwar e The basic idea behind open source software is very simple. When programmers can read, redistribute, and modi- fy the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it; people adapt it; people fix bugs. Open source development is ideally suited to the infrastruc- ture of the internet and is becoming increasingly ubiquitous. It has the potential to move at speeds that put proprietary software development to shame. There are at least three types of open source software: server software, desktop applications and web applications. What is the difference between open source software and proprietary software? Open source software is software where the source code is freely-available. Users are free to make improvements and redistribute the code as long as they abide by the terms and conditions of the governing licence. The most famous piece of open source software is the ope- rating system GNU/Linux. Conversely, the source code for proprietary software is generally kept secret. A user pur- chases only the compiled version of proprietary software and has no choice but to use the software as is. What is the difference between source code and compiled code? Source code is commonly used to refer to the high- level programming language that human programmers use to build computer programs, more broadly, it is the informa- tion which constitutes the work provided in modifiable for- mat. Anyone educated in the particular (programming) lan- guage in which the code is written can understand and edit the source code. Compiled code is source code that has been compiled, or translated, into a language that computers can 115 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate understand (compiled code is also called binary code). No human can understand or edit compiled code. Even speciali- zed programs, designed to reverse-compile, cannot reprodu- ce perfect source code from compiled code. Source code is open while compiled code is closed. For a breakdown of the different classes of information, see Appendix A: Open Information Schematic History Much of today?s open source software can be traced back to the 1960s when a community of programmers developed amongst several US computer science laboratories (Stanford, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, and the Michigan Institute of Technology). Software source code was passed from one person to another and frequently modified. The resulting derivative work would then be passed along to the community. This was the ?hacker? culture: a belief that information sharing is not only good, but also an ethical res- ponsibility. Setting the stage for open source software deve- lopment was the fact that the contemporary commercial environment was much more conducive to these kinds of practices. The large-scale commercial computers being sold at that time came with software that had few of the restric- tions that are so common in modern proprietary software; software came with its source code and the source code could be shared and modified. In the 1970s, computers started becoming more affor- dable and, therefore, more accessible to businesses and indi- viduals. Companies, such as IBM, quickly realized that it could also make money on the software itself and started unbundling it from the hardware. Software began to be sold under proprietary licences which explicitly prohibited re- distribution and modification. Further insurance against the practice of sharing was that software?s source code was no longer included alongside the compiled code. This shift in the industry paradigm inevitably reverberated back to the 116 iCommons at the Digital Age computer science academic community itself. By the 1980s, the hacker community started to break apart; the sale of Scribe, a text-formatting program written by Brian Reed at Carnegie Mellon University and the formation of two com- panies for the sale of MIT?s Lisp system were two important milestones in this disintegration. However, there was still hope for the open source movement... his name was Richard Stallman. Free Software Foundation Richard Stallman was a graduate student at the MIT?s Artificial Intelligence laboratory. He worked primarily on a DEC (Digtal Equipment Corporation) PDP-10 computer for which he and his colleagues had developed an enormous array of software tools. The DEC PDP-10 was eventually discontinued and none of the operating systems available for the replacement computers were free. Witnessing the disap- pearing hacker ethic and the move towards proprietary soft- ware, Stallman decided to create software aimed at reviving the hacker community: the software would have accessible source code, it would be modifiable, shareable and free. The FSF?s goal was, simply put, to make it so that no one would ever have to pay for software. In Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism, Stallman describes the motivation behind free software: My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal:sprea- ding freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free softwa- re to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids coope- ration,and thus make our society better.2 Stallman expands on why free software makes society better: What does society need? It needs information that is truly avai- lable to its citizens ? for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can?t study or chan- 117 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate ge. Society also needs freedom.When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens.When software owners tell us that hel- ping our neighbours in a natural way is piracy, they pollute our society?s civic spirit.3 Stallman realized that in order to get people involved, he would have to develop something that is both useful and non-trivial ? he decided to write code for a ?free? operating system. A computer operating system is a complex piece of software: it provides all the essential functions required for a modern computer to run other software. UNIX is an ope- rating system developed at the AT\&T Bell Labs in 1970 and based on previous collaborations with MIT and General Electric. In 1979, the seventh edition of UNIX was released. This version was the last to be widely released under the UNIX label, though it was eventually developed into sepa- rate versions, or flavours, of UNIX by various groups, such as the Berkley Software Distribution (BSD) at the University of California. Because UNIX was proven and its use widespread, Stallman decided to base his operating system on it. In 1983, Stallman started work on his operating system named Gnu?s Not Unix (GNU). In order to make certain that GNU would always be distributed in harmony with his free software phi- losophy, Stallman created the GNU General Public License (GPL) which permitted users to view, change, and add to the GNU source code, provided that they made their changes available under the same license as the original code. He then formed the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1985 to oversee the GNU project, along with other projects made available under the GPL. However, by 1990, it was clear that the project was experiencing, what seemed to be, insur- mountable difficulties creating a kernel for their operating system. 118 iCommons at the Digital Age GNU/Linux Meanwhile, Linus Torvalds, a student at the University of Helsinki had been working on developing an operating sys- tem kernel as a hobby. The contemporary open source move - ment was born when Linus? kernel was modified to be com- patible with the existing GNU project components. Soon after the release of the initial version of Torvald?s kernel in 1991, thousands of programmers began contributing to the evolution of the aptly-named ?Linux? kernel so that it could be used with the GNU project, alongside other pieces of free software (BSD components and MIT?s X-Windows, in par- ticular), to produce an operating system known as GNU/Linux (popularly referred to as Linux). In the shadow of Linux?s widespread popularity, Stallman?s masterpiece, namely the GPL, and the proliferation of open source soft- ware which it spawned, is sorely neglected. The Coining of ?Open Source? How does free software differ from open source? The dif- ference between these two camps is, for the most part, ideo- logical. The collaborative methodology used for software development is the same for both free and open source soft- ware. Free software development, however, has a moral foundation, in that it is motivated by an altruistic desire to improve society at large; from the FSF?s perspective, the societal benefit from having access to open source software is valued above individual commercial gain. The term FLOSS was popularized in a June 2001 letter to the European Commission; FLOSS was created by combi- ning the competing terms free and open source software, as advocated by the FSF and Open Source Initiative (OSI), res- pectively. Libre is used to connote that ?free as in freedom? is the intended understanding, rather than ?free of charge?, ie. gratis. In 1992, hacker anthropologist, Eric Raymond (a friend of Richard Stallman) started writing a landmark paper entit- led The Cathedral and the Bazaar.4 Raymond?s paper fol- 119 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate lows the evolution of GNU/ Linux and puts forth the propo- sition that: Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. The Cathedral and the Bazaar caught the attention of Netscape, to whom it was apparent by 1997 that the compa- ny was falling behind in the browser-wars. If Netscape could get the attention of the hacker community, it reasoned, it would not only increase its product visibility, but may also harness the power of volunteer developers from around the world. The announcement that Netscape would release the sour- ce code for its web-browser, Navigator, under the project name Mozilla, came late in January 1998. Still, worries exis- ted about adopting Stallman?s intimidating, and somewhat radical, free software philosophy; Netscape needed to modi- fy the ideology surrounding the term FLOSS to be more attractive to the business world. On February 3rd, 1998 at a Palo Alto, California brainstorming session, attended by Raymond, the term open source was coined; one week later, an accompanying website named the Open Source Initiative was launched.5 This term was quickly adapted in technical circles and soon preferred by the mainstream media. The Open Source Way How does open source software development work? In seeking to gain an appreciation of the open source way we would be well-served to remember the candid confession of Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who is famously quoted as saying: If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. Open source software development embraces this prin- ciple. The open source way is a community-centric metho- dology, which encourages the free flow of knowledge and insight between its members. The open source model does away with organizations and central control, replacing them 120 iCommons at the Digital Age with open networks of individuals. Every individual can build on the work that has been done by others in the net- work; no time is spent reinventing the wheel. Indeed, the open source way has become a venerable philosophy sprea- ding far beyond the realm of software development. Figure 1: The Open Source Development Model: Source code is avai- lable to public. The public is free to make improvements 121 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate Figure 2: The Closed Development Model: The Microsoft source code is closely guarded. The user only receives a compiled version of the software. Modification is impossible. In recent years, the linking of individuals has been great- ly enhanced by the internet?s high-speed data capacity and omnipresence. With efficient networking infrastructure in place, the collaborative open source model has limitless potential. In fact, over the last decade open source software licences have been embraced internationally and are already in force for hundreds of thousands of computer programs.6 Open Source Definition Explained The open source definition is derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines.7 Bruce Perens composed the ori- ginal draft guidelines which were later refined based on the suggestions from Debian GNU/Linux distribution develo- pers in an email discussion group during June 1997. These guidelines were revised somewhat, and Debian-specific references removed, by Raymond and the OSI to create the (OSI) open source definition in February 1998. This defini- tion would become the standard by which all software would 122 iCommons at the Digital Age be judged to be open source; ie. in order to be certified as open source software, by the OSI, the software must carry an OSI-compliant copyright licence. Through its vigilant policing of the open source definition the OSI acts as the gatekeeper, or stamp of approval, for open source software. Presently, there are upwards of 40 dif- ferent software copyright licences which meet the defini- tion?s strict requirements. The ten criteria which must be met by to be considered open source software are described on the OSI website.8 To reiterate, the term open source is properly used only when referring to software released under a copyright licen- ce that conforms to the principles enumerated in the OSI?s open source definition or the FSF?s four freedoms.9 Note that the OSI and FSF definitions are complementary and non- exclusionary ? though elucidated in different language, they are the same. In a nutshell, to be officially considered open source, the licence that the work is offered under must allow for, among other things: 1. Royalty-free redistribution (including source code); and 2. Modifications and derived works. Licenses Some open source licences, most famously the GPL, go further by mandating re c i p rocal licensing; that is, where a w o r k ?s copyright licence requires that users of the work conti- nue to make it (and any derivatives in which it forms whole or part) freely-available to others under the terms of the parent licence. A licence which contains this additional restriction is referred to as a c o p y l e f t licence. In C reative Commons j a rg o n this is referred to as S h a re A l i k e. Mandating sharing-alike in a software licence is advantageous to the open source software community because it ensures that no one can build upon the c o m m u n i t y ?s code base without contributing their own modi- fications back to the public commons. 123 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate Alternatively, non-copyleft licences are non-reciprocal and do not carry such a requirement. For example, the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) licence allows licen- sees to create private derived works, ie. commercial softwa- re with unpublished source code, and does not require that changes to the public version be published in any form. This is how non-copylefted works, such as the BSD TCP/IP net- work stack, have found themselves incorporated into pro- prietary product offerings. However, non-copyleft is an important option for creators who wish to make their works freely-available but without any restrictions on the licensing of derivative works. Both copyleft and non-copyleft are open source licences. Open source licences make use of the copyright(s) granted to computer programs in order to secure the licences? terms and conditions. Again, anyone can copy, distribute, and modify open source software as long as they abide by the licence?s terms and conditions. Anyone found to be violating the licence may be subject to legal sanctions under appli- cable copyright law. 124 iCommons at the Digital Age Figure 3: Copyleft licensing: an open source licence (like the GPL) becomes attached to every program that incorporates open source code or code derived from open source code. Pink programs have come under the jurisdiction of the GPL. In between the BSD and the GPL, in terms of its level of restrictiveness, is the Mozilla Public licence (MPL). Changes to source code licensed under the MPL must be made freely-available on the internet. The MPL, unlike the GPL, is non-viral: additions to (as opposed to modifications of) the MPL-licensed source code which create a larger work may be licensed according to the whim of the creator and need not be published at all. The MPL does not require downstream creators to ShareAlike; however, it is more res- trictive than the BSD licence. 125 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate Figure 4: Comparison of the three main types of open source licences A popular, and pragmatic, question is: Can you still sell a work that has been made available under an open source licence? The short answer is yes; an open source developer can commercially licence software already available under an open source licence. This is because OSI-compliance dic- tates that commercial applications of the source code cannot be prohibited ? such a restriction disqualifies a licence from being properly called open source. However, the continuing requirement to make the source code freely-available may frustrate the opportunity for commercial remuneration. Why purchase software when you can download the source code for free? Capitalizing from open source products necessi- tates the provision of value-added services rather than just product distribution (see Open Source Business Models below). Are open sources licences a waiver of the copyright hol- der?s rights in the work? No, there is no waiver of rights. The open source licence is a unilateral, though non-revocable, licence which conditionally grants permission to exercise certain copyrights. Only an explicit dedication of a work to the public domain has the effect of waiving a copyright hol- der?s rights prior to the expiration of the term of copyright. Are open source licences legally valid? At time of wri- ting, there has been no direct legal challenge to open source licences in Canada or in the United States. However, open source licences are conceptually similar to clickwrap and shrinkwrap licences, ie. unilateral contracts, which have been found to be legally enforceable by North American courts. The licence?s terms and conditions may be unilate- rally accepted or rejected by a potential licensee. There are 126 iCommons at the Digital Age several ways in which open source licences are presented to, and accepted, by a licensee. Modes of Licensing Clickwrap licences utilize ?pop-up? boxes. Whenever an individual attempts to install and/or run the related software, a pop-up box opens up on the computer screen with instruc- tions and the text of the licence. When the individual clicks their cursor on the I Agree button, they have signaled their acceptance of the licence. Shrinkwrap licences are printed on the outside of softwa- re boxes and, obstensibly, read through the transparent plas- tic shrinkwrap packaging. By proceeding to open the shrink- wrap and use the software product, a licensee is considered to have communicated their acceptance of the licence terms and conditions. Open source licences can be communicated to an indivi- dual in a number of additional ways; for example: in a README document distributed alongside the source code, in the source code itself, etcetera. An individual indicates acceptance when they use, modify or redistribute the soft- ware. Open Source Business Model As open source increases in popularity, innovative busi- ness models are following suit. Some of these business models are commercial, with software development compa- nies using open source as a way to lower overall project costs. Other business models are non-profit, eg. civil society organizations banding together to create software applica- tions that will benefit the whole community.10 Freely-available source code allows a worldwide com- munity of developers to participate in peer-production, peer- review, and peer-distribution. A program can be improved and redistributed in perpetuity, benefiting the entire commu- nity. As the open source model of openness and collabora- 127 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate tion expands, the quality of open source products also improves. The issue of overall quality aside, open source software has four inherent advantages over proprietary software. First, open source software is considerably less expensive than proprietary alternatives. Second, access to underlying source code means users can detect and fix programming bugs ? this transparency also helps to alleviate security concerns about the inclusion of viruses and/or backdoors. Third, open source software can be tailored to users? speci- fic needs, and upgrades implemented at a pace chosen by the user, not the vendor. Fourth, open source allows users to be flexible in their choice of vendors; for example, if users are not happy with the service they receive from Red Hat they can choose another Linux vendor. This prevents users from becoming overly dependent on their technology or support contracts.11 Nevertheless, there are still disadvantages to employing open source products. Of specific concern is the potential liability for intellectual property infringement. The typical open source project contains contributions from many people. It is almost impossible to audit the entire code base for violations of previous licence conditions. This creates many opportunities for contributors to introduce infringing code. Thus this risk in the development process is largely borne by licensees. Contributors do not vouch for the inte- grity of the code they contribute to the project; in fact, the opposite is true ? the standard open source licence is desi- gned to be very protective of the contributor. The typical licence agreement does not include any intellectual property representations, warranties or indemnities in favour of the licensee; instead, it contains a broad disclaimer of all war- ranties with respect to representations of fitness for use or merchantability. In sum, though there is no guarantee of quality or fitness open source software is, for the most part, surprisingly robust. Some open source software projects, such as the Linux initiative, have one or more stewards who monitor 128 iCommons at the Digital Age code quality and track bugs. Other initiatives, however, are the product of hobbyists and may not enjoy the same code quality and rigorous testing protocol. Without contractual commitments of quality or fitness, the licensee must ultima- tely accept the risk that the software contains fatal errors, viruses or other problems that may have downstream finan- cial consequences.1 2 Nevertheless, these risks must be approached as business decisions and should not be unduly exaggerated. The Creative Commons Canada Experience The iCommons project provides participating countries with their own page on the Creative Commons website through which the draft licence and the discussion surroun- ding it can be centrally-accessed.13 Visitors to a country?s iCommons page can download the draft licence, read the email discussion threads, subscribe to the email discussion and/or post their comments to the discussion email list. In retrospect, we were, in fact, recreating the infrastructu- re and behaviour commonly found in online open source Concurrent Versions Systems (CVS) such as SourceForge;14 that is, we were carrying out the same processes, and confor- ming to the same protocols, as the open source software community. So why reinvent the wheel? The computer science industry has invested formidable effort and resources into information and communication technologies. Shouldn?t legal practitioners stand on the shoulders of giants? The Application of Computer Science Techniques to the Practice of La w It is sole purpose of this essay to propose that the open source methodology and other complementary techniques, hereto unique to the computer science industry, would have similar value if applied to the text-based products developed by the legal profession. In fact, the nature of text-based pro- 129 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate ducts is ideally suited to the open source way; rather than being capable of being compiled, text-based products inhe- rently reveal their source code. Let us consider the possibili- ties. Enumerated Techniques There are several core computer science techniques which immediately come to mind as having particular appli- cability to the commons-based peer-production of text pro- ducts. File-Sharing A p e e r-to-peer (P2P) computer network is a decentralized file-sharing network in which every computer is both a client and a server ? enabling computers to access each other directly without the aid of an intermediary, or central, server. Such networks are self-generating. There is no central repo- sitory of information. Instead, the networks cluster around nodes, or supernodes, which serve as broadcasters for search requests. Like a game of broken telephone, network neigh- bours pass along the information necessary to locate the peer desired. Once a P2P connection has been established, files can be transferred directly between the peers. Lawyers and/or the general public are encouraged to share their law-related stores over a P2P network similarly to the recent surge in the P2P-sharing of audio and video files.15 Based solely on the high value of legal information, a net- work of law-related stores could reasonably be expected to proliferate both exponentially and internationally. A dedica- ted P2P network for legal information and forms and other secondary data is the logical complement of the internatio- nally syndicated Legal Information Institute, which bills itself as a ?centralized and harmonized portal for primary legal materials?.16 Only a real-time P2P network can keep pace with constantly evolving content. 130 iCommons at the Digital Age Standardized File-Naming There are several obstacles which must be overcome for P2P file-sharing of law-related materials to be successful. The real value of a well P2P network is the easy access to, and beneficial use of the files, contained within; file-sharing networks are only as powerful as their weakest link. Much of the information freely available is incorrectly or poorly labeled. Titles seldom meaningfully convey the relevant sub- ject matter. Document types are not necessarily ascertainable from file format designations. Country-specific information is rarely acknowledged as such. One way to address these technical barriers is through the prescription of a standardi- zed file-naming protocol for naming law-related files. A filename is a short text string that describes a file?s contents. Filenames should be consistent for all media. The creation of a coherent file-naming protocol both within a workplace and across a particular industry is critical to the mining and application of information. Without it, knowled- ge identification and management is significantly impeded. When first approaching standardized file-naming, it is helpful to become familiarized with the entrenched chal- lenges. A collection of information, if striving to be accura- te, is continually in flux. A faithful file-naming protocol must allow for version control. Active and archived files should not conflict through overlapping or be altered without note. Unique filenames must be independent of their locations within a network and scalable to allow for both numerous files and additional ingredients. Draft protocol: title(creator).subject.subtopic.type.jurisdiction.date(version).format Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 becomes: criminal_code_cC46(RSC1985).criminal.federal.statute.ca.24011985.pdf 131 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate The proffered protocol suggests seven file-fields to be used when creating a filename and seeks to incorporate industry standard reference formats where possible, eg. ISO3006 country-code designations. The applicable file- naming policy should be accessible and digestible by the layperson user. A file-naming protocol should be built to per- severe over time; but, most importantly, any and all changes in protocol must be immediately implemented in all files within the network. To sum, lawyers would be well counseled to discontinue contributing to poorly organized stores of legal information and forms. Note also that when sharing legal products such as template agreements or memos, it is imperative that prac- titioners remember to remove confidential information and personal data. The distribution of solicitor-client privileged information is both unethical and against the law Listservs The l i s t s e rv is simply an email discussion l i s t where pos- tings to a central address are s e rv e d to a group of subscribers. Listserv subscribers can choose to receive the postings as they happen or a digest of postings for a set period of time, eg. d a i l y, weekly, etc. In the open source community revisions are often vigorously debated over a project listserv. These discus- sion threads can be exceedingly helpful to project latecomers and anthropologists by providing a historical archive of the p r o j e c t ?s evolution. In some cases, revisions are controlled through consensus reached over a listserv; where this is not so, other forms of revision control are needed. Revision Control What is revision control? As used in software develop- ment, a revision control system is a tool for recording, indexing and manipulating the changes (revisions) made to the source code.17 When more than one person is working on a file, care must be taken to ensure that they do not commit 132 iCommons at the Digital Age different changes to the file at the same time. In the past this was accomplished by ?checking out? a copy of the file, much like you would a book at the library ? no one can bor- row the file until you have returned the copy. But what if you want people to be able to work on the same file at once? One way to do this is for people to save their copy as a new file; however, this practices raising the dreaded specter of forking or branching, ie. where a single file splits into two versions, nether of which contain the enti- re body of source code. This can be countered by providing a mechanism for synonymous contributions to be merged into a single work. A modern revision control system is one where the contri- butor can ask a central control system to commit the modifi- cation to the main file itself, thereby avoiding any possible forking. While there are different prescriptions for the revi- sion commit process, a modern solution comes in the form of Wiki technology. Wiki In the case of Wiki technology, the medium is, in fact, the message.18 A Wiki or wiki (pronounced ?wicky?) is a websi- te (or other hypertext document collection) that allows any user to add content, as on an internet forum, but also allows that content to be edited by any other user. Revisions are uploaded in real-time and, so, can be seen immediately after their commitment to the file. Wiki wiki is the Hawaiian term for quick or super-fast.19 Wikimedia is an open source software package created from the source code of the world?s largest encyclopedia, and most active wiki, Wikipedia.20 Besides basic wiki func- tionality, Wikimedia offers an accompanying discussion list and revision history with each document project. Among the most powerful of wiki features is the ability to reset the document to a past version, eg. where undesirable modifica- tions have been committed. Community moderation and 133 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate consensus is relied on to reach the tipping point where a revision in incorporated into the main document. Think of the wiki as a real-time web-based tug-of-war with text. TeX Another application which could potentially play a role similar to, or in cooperation with, the wiki is TeX (Tau Epsilon Chi) ? pronounced ?tech?. Donald Knuth created TeX, the basis for LaTeX in the late 1970s out of his dissa- tisfaction with existing computer typesetting programs.21 TeX is a computer program specifically designed for type- setting text and mathematical formulae. LaTeX is a macro package that enables authors to typeset and print their work at the highest typographical quality, using a predefined, command-driven, professional layout. LaTeX was originally written by Leslie Lamport and uses the TeX formatter as its typesetting engine. LaTeX is pronounced ?lay-tech?. The subtle value of LaTeX is realized by the fact that it enables documents to be drafted in much the same manner as computer software script. The document is written in a text-editor using ASCII text and then rendered for viewing by performing the TeX function on it. A typeset version is then created according to the commands contained within, similarly to how a computer program?s source code would be compiled prior to its execution. Because LaTeX works by specifying the structure and formatting of plain text, all the information necessary to render the document travels with it ? this gives the document the additional advantage of being both open source and device independent. A code-level appreciation of formatting encourages authors to write well- structured texts.22 Open Source At the risk of reiterating the statement made at the begin- ning of this paper, the basic idea behind applying the open source way to law is very simple. When lawyers can read, 134 iCommons at the Digital Age redistribute, and modify the source code for a particular legal product, the product evolves. Lawyers improve it; lawyers adapt it; lawyers fix bugs. opensource.la w Introduction Based on a culmination of the techniques and technolo- gies described above, the opensource.law project attempts to sketch out an internet-based platform, and protocol, for the development of legal products.2 3 Although the opensource.law project is intended for use by law professio- nals, non-lawyers will be able to freely-access and peruse the legal products contained within (though they will not have the security clearance required to modify them). Benefits There are several benefits of applying the open source way to the practice of law which immediately come to mind, they include: 1. Creates opportunities for lawyers to share their work and ideas without having to get direct permission. 2. Legal products can be obtained by lawyers at zero, or mar- ginal, cost. 3. Increased quality of legal information and products. 4. Open source products are built on open standards and are, for the most part, device independent. 5. Development expenses, whether in terms of time or resources, are distributed among the group of participating practitioners. 6. Allows law professionals and students to stay current with industry standards and trends without paying trade publica- tion subscription fees. 135 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate 7. Peer-review vets inaccuracies and mistaken assumptions ? community debugging results in greater security and less individual responsibility. 8. Offers the opportunity to provide higher levels of service, at a reduced cost, to clients through the customization of commons-based legal products. Providing further motivation is the fact that there is much legal content that cannot be bought from commercial data- bases. Open source projects also attract enthusiastic developers who are more likely to make a meaningful contribution. A n d last, but certainly not least, using open source legal products makes you part of a cooperative community and helps perpe- tuate open source values, such as freely-available information. Borrowing, in part, on computer science terminology, there are several different roles for lawyers to take in the opensource.law project, including: administrator, moderator, project manager, counsel, programmer, tester/debugger, compiler, translator/porter, and support technician. Products developed using the opensource.law platform, and all contri- butions therein, will be required to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licence24 in order to comply with the principles enumerated in the OSI?s open source definition. However, the migration from the proprietary to open source business model will not come without costs. The costs of using open source products, whether legal, software or otherwise, still must be borne by the user. Nevertheless, as the open source legal community expands and matures operating costs will be reduced while product quality may be expected to continually increase. The consideration of the short-term costs versus long-term gains of adopting this new mode of production must be carefully evaluated like any other business decision. It is important to note that this ana- lysis should be performed using a total cost of ownership or full accounting method.25 136 iCommons at the Digital Age Rate of Adoption The practice of opensource.law will likely be received as counter-intuitive by the legal profession, who have traditio- nally strictly controlled and traded every last bit of marke- table legal information. This author is the first to admit that the mind-shift required to facilitate the sharing of legal infor- mation and forms is nothing less than stupefying. Like any other movement, reeducation of the stakeholder interest groups is the first step to acceptance and broad change. The value of sharing must be demonstrated and documented ? to this end, the opensource.law project hopes to act as a proof of concept. At the end of the day, however, the incentive for practi- cing lawyers to participate in a law-related open-source net- work is commensurate with the ?utility of the available content and the ease with which desired content can be found?.26 A challenge in applying the open source way to the practice of law is identifying quality content within a net- work. Although file-naming can be formally structured, the traditional method of judging content by the reputation and social-status of its creator has been challenged by the ano- nymous nature of Internet communications. With respect to electronic information, identification of quality content is easily achieved, for the most part, given that care is taken to ensure content advertised as lawyer- drafted is indeed so. Once content has been introduced into a file-sharing network, or posted to a website, its relative value can then be discerned from its popularity. For example, keyword and/or download search results are ran- ked in order of the amount of users sharing or accessing a particular file; consequently, the cream rises to the top.27 It is suggested by preeminent technology law scholar Professor Ethan Katsh that: The days of (lawyers) hoarding hard-won legal expertise are over. Being a valuable lawyer in a networked world involves sharing 137 C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate information with others, so that you become a valuable node on the network.28 The emerging latent middle-market for legal products and services promises to be quite lucrative provided that practi- tioners are willing to more freely share their large stores of research and information both within, and beyond, the confines of the profession. Lawyers will then be able to take advantage of reduced costs of production to begin exploring a high-volume, low-cost, business model. Free your code, the rest will follow. APPENDIX A: Open Information Schematic * Marcus Bornfreund is Manager / Part-time Professor: University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Law & Technology Program 1 Special thanks to Ian M. Kerr and Marko Zatowkaniuk, law students and proponents of the open source way, for their outstanding contributions to this paper ? indeed parts of this work are, verbatim, their own. Deep graditude to Grand Master Kim G. von Arx for ensur- ing that I stay on the path. This paper, and the materials/resources flowing from it, are the result of commons-based peer-production and are not exclusively derived from my own thoughts and/or ideas.2 See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html3 See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html4 Read the paper at http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar5 Learn more at http://www.opensource.org6 Many of these pieces of open source software can be found at http://www.sourceforge.org7 See both the Debian Guidelines and Social Contract at http://www.debian.org8 See http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php9 See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html10 Quoted from Surman and Diceman (The Commons Group), Choosing Open Source: A decision making guide for civil society organizations (2004) available at http://www.itrain- online.org/ [hereinafter Surman]11 See note above.12 Quoted from An Overview of Open Source Software Licenses found at http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/opensource.html13 For example, see the iCommons Canada page at h t t p : / / c r e a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg/projects/international/ca. See also, the Creative Commons Canada website at http://creativecommons.ca14 See SourceForge?s CVS for the open source community at http://www.sourceforge.org15 Visit the Law-Share Network at http://law-share.net to learn more about P2P-sharing of legal products.16 See http://www.law.cornell.edu. See also T. Scassa, The Best Things in Law are Free?: Towards Quality Free Public Access to Primary Legal Materials in Canada (2000) 23(2) Dalhousie L. J. 30117 Quoted from http://www.gnuarch.org/revctl-intro.html96 As my friend Ketai Hu counsels: Wiki, wiki, wiki.19 Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki20 Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate, free content ency- clopedia, see http://wikipedia.org. The Wikimedia source code is available at 138 iCommons at the Digital Age C.C. Licenses and Open Governance:To Create and To Regulate http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net21 See Knuth?s homepage at http://www-cs-staff.stanford.edu/~knuth22 Thanks to my LaTeX guru, Louis Raphael B?liveau of Montreal, Canada, who is known to spontaneously exclaim: LaTeX is great!23 For further information and updates about the project please visit opensource.law at http://www.opensourcelaw.ca24 The opensource.law project will use the domestic version of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licence based on the nationality of the contributor.25 Such a holistic evaluation requires the consideration of all the disparate costs assoicated with a particular product over the course of its lifetime; this includes: hardware, software, maintenance, training, programming, testing, upgrades. See further, Surman at note 8.26 H.H. Perritt, Why Should Practicing Lawyers Be Interested in the Internet (1996) 443 PLI/Pat 47 at 49-50. 27 This is known as the ?Google Effect?. 28 M.E. Katsh, Law In A Digital World: Computer Networks and Cyberspace (1993) 38 Vill. L. Rev. 403 at 457. 140 iCommons at the Digital Age Part 3. New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives 141 N E T L A B E L S A N D T H E A D O P T I O N O F C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S L I C E N S I N G I N T H E O N L I N E E L E C T R O N I C M U S I C C O M M U N I T Y B j ? rn Ha rt m a n n * R?sum? Le mod?le de licence Creative Commons a ?t? adopt? par une grande partie de la communaut? de la musique ?lectronique en ligne. Un nombre croissant de labels en ligne publient gratuitement des compositions originales en utilisant les licences Creative Commons ?Partage de Musique?. Pour comprendre ce ph?nom?ne, l?auteur pr?sente un historique de la sc?ne musicale ?lectronique identifiant les facteurs de motivation. Les m?canismes de gestion d?un label en ligne sont d?crits et les quatre raisons pour lesquelles une partie significative de la sc?ne musicale ?lectronique s?est ali- gn?e avec le projet Creative Commons est discut?e. Abstract The Creative Commons licensing model has enjoyed par- ticularly high adoption rates in the online electronic music community. A growing number of netlabels publish original compositions for free online using Creative Commons? music sharing license.To understand this phenomenon, a history of the electronic music scene is presented that identifies moti- vating factors.The mechanics of running a netlabel are explai- ned along with a detailed discussion of four reasons why a significant portion of the electronic music scene has aligned itself with the Creative Commons project. 143 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives Introduction For better or worse, the music industry was the first crea- tive sector to feel the enormous transformative power of widely available broadband internet access. While mains- tream news media have focused mostly on the major labels? battle against music file sharing on the one hand and a few success stories of large companies entering the online music sales market on the other hand, the shift towards digital dis- tribution has also had a less publicized yet still profound impact on small independent labels. In contrast to the major players, many niche labels and their artists have found this conversion to be a liberating one, freeing them from a dys- functional system of physical distribution. A growing com- munity of artists now shares their compositions with the public online for free - and many are using Creative Commons licenses to do so. The trend is especially prevalent among producers of electronic dance and experimental music. Within this sector, netlabels - non-commercial online publishing groups ? have seen explosive growth over the last two years. Consider these numbers: in October 2004, the Internet Archive,1 which hosts a comprehensive but by no means exhaustive collection of netlabels, held release catalogs of more than 130 labels on their servers with a total of 3,275 available recordings. All of these works can be downloaded for free, and the overwhelming majority has been released to the public under one of the Creative Commons licenses. This chapter will first trace the particular history of the indepen- dent electronic music scene and will then try to explain its affinity towards the Creative Commons project. Real-world figures from the author?s own experience with traditional and online labels will be presented. Individual factors that contributed to the rapid and wide-spread adoption of Creative Commons among netlabels are identified, along with remaining challenges and resistances. 144 iCommons at the Digital Age Dysfunctional status quo:The offline independent music industr y The small independent electronic music labels at the cen- ter of this exposition are almost completely decoupled from the mainstream music markets. Separate producers supply separate audiences through separate distribution chains. Often times, the labels are artist-run, so divisions between artistic and business functions rarely exist. Because of the relatively small target audience, most publishing activities are driven by personal enthusiasm and passion for the music, not the hopes of big commercial success or being discovered by a major company. While only marginally profitable at best, the small labels occupy an important place in the musi- cal landscape. They represent the frontier between amateur and professional spheres, between part-time and fulltime involvement. Characterized by continuous struggle for eco- nomic survival, these niche communities often form the spearhead, the avant-garde, of musical innovation that ins- pires taste changes in mainstream markets and supplies fresh talent. Even though niche labels and artists work in an envi- ronment independent of the restrictive major system, they developed a set of own structural problems. Since dissatis- faction with this system in turn shaped the direction of music publishing online, the economics of traditional niche labels are briefly outlined below. Economics of a typical offline niche label Much of the electronic music scene still favors publishing and buying vinyl records. This apparent anachronism stems from the central role that the DJ assumes in the dissemina- tion of electronic music ? and DJs continue to rely on the turntable/vinyl combination because it allows for direct manual interaction with the music which is important for mixing and scratching. Unfortunately, the dependence on the physical sound carriers heavily skews control in the publi- shing chain towards those entities that are concerned with logistics ? the handling of the carrier objects. In particular, 145 New Models for Cultural Commons:the Examples of Music and Archives an oligarchy of distributors sets prices, volumes, and even influences labels? release schedules, thereby controlling much of the latter group?s fortunes. Collection societies, ori- ginally intended to protect the artists? interests, are perceived as stifling: their asymmetric attention to larger publishers, their bureaucratic rigidity and administrative costs lead many artists to forego collection agency registration altoge- ther. An experimental label can expect to sell between 500 and 1500 copies of a record, manufactured at approximately 2 a piece and sold on to distributors for around 3. Thus, the total profit per record hovers between zero and a meager 1500 which has to be split between the label and all invol- ved artists. Yet the multi-step manufacturing process requires a significant financial investment which, with cur- rent payment practices, is often not recouped for 6 to 9 months. Artists have found a way out of this conundrum by relying more heavily on live gigs as their source of income - a single performance can pay as much as a record release. However, records continue to form the basis upon which an artist?s reputation is built. Without publishing unprofitable records, profitable performance engagements are hard to find. Looking be yond economics: m usic as a medium for social interaction Given such an unfavorable environment for the smallest labels and niche artists ? why would one stay involved at all? The first answer is that many people do not. After entering with passion, disillusionment quickly sets in and financial strain causes many efforts to quickly founder. However, publishing music has never been about economics alone. There is the fervor driving the individual to create, and beyond that, a rich network of social interaction to partake in. If one looks at music not as a business, but as a commu- nication medium, a more valuable social payoff comes into sight. It is the function of music as a universal connector, a 146 iCommons at the Digital Age topic for community building, a nexus for artistic exchange and creative experimentation that marks its true value. Turning away from unaccommodating commercial net- works, a number of artists realized this potential and moved towards its realization online, avoiding the pitfall of merely replicating the restrictive brick-and-mortar model of music distribution in the digital domain. Partial inspiration for this community-centric view of the musical world came from a prior experiment in open access music circulation ? the trac - ker community. Flashback:?Trackers? in the 1990s Before internet access was widely available and before recording technology became affordable to home users, groups of young computer buffs exchanged their musical creations using a network of dial-in bulletin board systems. Their pieces were written using tracker software that offered simple arrangement and effects processing capabilities for a limited number of sample based instruments. Constraints of computing power imposed a distinct low-fidelity aesthetic on most productions. Interestingly, the music files that were exchanged were ?open source? in that each file exposed its musical source code ? the complete sequencing information as well as any sound samples employed ? to the public for inspection and reuse. No one involved made a living off of tracked music; but a distinct sense of community arose which led to a series of Europe-wide meetings for competi- tions between groups. Perhaps because the lack of financial stakes, the scene never adopted a restrictive licensing model ? sharing and re-use of music were considered basic prin- ciples of the community. Netlabels: a new model for free Creative Commons- based online distribution Recently, more and more traditional musicians realized what the tracker scene had presciently grasped many years 147 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives before: if the goal is to share your creation with others and if musical information can be efficiently delivered as just data ? why not jettison the carrier media? Moreover, if for small labels the dysfunctions of the independent music industry are largely attributable to the cost of handling the carrier media, would a digital distribution method not improve their lot? For the DJ attached to the standard tools of his craft, workarounds like Final Scratch2 that enable the use of phy- sical interfaces to play back digital files are now readily available. What reasons remain to keep the carriers other than an innate human tendency to collect and hoard tangible objects? The shift away from identifying music with com- modity products and towards a community-interaction based framework closely aligned forward-thinking artists with the principles of Creative Commons. Loosely translating the fil- tering and aggregating functions of traditional labels, but eschewing a commercial model, the term netlabel3 was coi- ned to circumscribe these artist groups? activities. A quasi-standard for operating netlabels has crystallized in the meantime. Most netlabels offer high-quality down- loads in MP3 or OGG format from their websites, which also feature extensive information about the contributing artists with links to other related projects. Discussion forums and message boards for an open exchange about the music are common. Downloads are free of charge and labels expli- citly allow for non-commercial copying of their material, mostly through the Creative Commons no derivatives, non- commercial, attribution license, recently recast as the music sharing license. Digital library sites such as archive.org and scene.org donate unlimited storage space and bandwidth to the projects, thus significantly reducing the hosting cost for netlabel operators. While this general model has been adopted by many labels, it must be added that it is by no means normative. Because of the relative absence of economic pressures, a wide variety of approaches are viable. Some netlabels are explicitly rejecting associations with the commercial music world, others see net audio as a stepping stone to enter the 148 iCommons at the Digital Age traditional industry, still other straddle the boundary. Some netlabels have ideological goals cast into manifestoes; others just enjoy sharing their work without financial burdens. This diversity has led some to complain about the wildly differing quality of material offered. In return, specialized online magazines covering netlabels such as Moritz Sauer?s Phlow4 have begun to take on an editorial role, surveying the wide field and picking out gems. At least one national print music magazine, the German de:bug,5 regularly features articles about netlabels. No other literature exists on netlabels, but they have recently become a topic of discussion at academic and professional conferences such as Freebitflows,6 Wizards of OS,7 or the mem Congress.8 Next, the precise nature of the affinity between netlabels and the Creative Commons pro- ject will be described. Four reasons why netlabels ha ve adopted Creativ e Commons licensing There are four major reasons why the free, non-commer- cial licensing scheme represented by the Creative Commons music sharing license is attractive for artists, netlabel owners and audiences. Each will be discussed in turn below. Reason 1: Promotion Promotion is the most direct and self-serving motive for an artist: releasing music online and allowing listeners to share that music with others has to make sense for the pro- ducer, otherwise the model will not find widespread use. For independent niche music it does make sense. As described above, artists generate income through performances. But to get booked, they need to build a reputation through a disco- graphy first. One can actually reach a larger audience by publishing works online for free than by using traditional channels. Listeners are more likely to seek out new material if this comes at no cost to them and they will share the music with others if they are actively encouraged to pass the music 149 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives on via file sharing networks, on CD, or however else they desire. Creative Commons licensed music then has the potential to enjoy both wider and faster diffusion. The author?s own netlabel, Textone,9 is evidence to the effective- ness of the strategy ? in one year, more than 175000 MP3 files were served from the site, far eclipsing sales numbers of Textone?s sister vinyl labels. Reason 2: Freedom from economic pressures Non-commercial distribution enables widespread availa- bility of music with limited commercial appeal. Economic considerations prevent much experimental/niche-audience music from being published on physical sound carriers at all. Of the existing releases, many are manufactured at a finan- cial loss - an arrangement that is hardly ideal for producers or consumers. Producers simply cannot afford sub-breake- ven releases over the long run. For consumers, copies of these limited releases are hard (if not impossible) to come by if they missed a record?s initial release or if they are not bles- sed with access to a specialty shop carrying said items. Because no physical distribution channel is needed, audiences everywhere can enjoy Creative Commons licen- sed online music. In general, low cost structure allows for labels to discount the economic impact of any particular decision they make - in other words, label politics are not constrained by market pre- ferences. As a related result, participation in the community is not dependent on disposable income. When speaking of inter- national communities we often imply groups comprised of a ffluent ?first world? citizens. For example, in much of the rest of the world manufacturing and distribution structures for niche music are simply absent. Moreover, local consumers there do not have the financial means to buy much music. By giving artists a toolset and a support structure to publish their music at nominal cost, the Creative Commons community has enabled groups from places as diverse as Ve n e z u e l a1 0 a n d L i t h u a n i a11 to join the electronic music community. 150 iCommons at the Digital Age Reason 3: Community building Communities live and die by the interaction between their members. Innovation is facilitated by having a sense of what already exists. Creativity in general never arises out of a void - it always incorporates prior experience and exposure. To build a vibrant, innovative, creative music scene requires fostering interaction with each other and encouragement of artistic exchange. Creative Commons licenses construct a positive, conducive environment for doing so. To clarify this point, one can contrast the netlabel scene with the mains- tream music market: netlabels are not interested in creating the kind of artificial distinction between producers and consumers that is promoted by the major labels. Netlabels are not interested in building one-way pipelines that push out products conceived by the marketing departments down to the masses. In electronic music, where the means of pro- duction are available to nearly anyone with a computer, each listener is also likely to turn into a producer. The distribution system for such a kind of music should reflect this equiposi- tion of artists and audiences. By building a system based on respect and trust rather than intimidation and litigation, a fair and open licensing scheme such as Creative Commons creates the positive base for future interaction. Reason 4: Future-proofing How many of today?s netlabels will still be around in five years? Hopefully a sizeable number, but almost certainly not all of them. How about in fifteen years? Or in fifty? The independent market has always been characterized by a high fluctuation rate brought about by economic pressures. One should therefore already think today about what will happen to today?s music tomorrow, when particular artists or labels are no longer around. Art always arises from the history of prior creations, so the community should be interested in making sure that future generations have full access to the music that is created right now. Creative Commons licenses ensure that this happens. Many works published under the 151 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives restrictive traditional copyright regime are in danger of being ?orphaned? for an obscenely long time if the exclusi- ve copyright holder dies or disappears. Without a legal way of distributing and sharing these works, most vanish from the public?s collective memory for so long that they are unli- kely to be resurrected after they pass into the public domain. In contrast, any work released under a Creative Commons license that allows for non-commercial distribution is more likely to survive since any single copy can legally spawn a future ?re-release.? As long as some user somewhere still has one copy of a Creative Commons work, the art is not lost - no matter if the artist is still around or not. Long term digi- tal library initiatives like the Internet Archive increase the chances of a transmission of today?s work through time. Thus, a sense of history and continuity is created and the future is not deprived of the achievements of today. Challenges for the futur e While the widespread adoption of Creative Commons principles and practices has lead to an explosion of freely available music online, in some ways the netlabel communi- ty has fallen short of fulfilling its potential. One of the most important steps towards true open collaboration between artists has not been widely adopted thus far: the permission to create derivative works. A blank license for remixing and otherwise altering existing works would surely spawn a wide range of interesting projects. However, it also raises thorny issues about attribution which already established artists worry about. Since reputation is the main currency in a community where financial incentives are small, having one?s name unknowingly attached to a re-made work that one does not approve of is not an enticing thought. Derivative licenses may not be appropriate for every work, but the community could use more courageous trailblazers. The possibility of disintermediation ? cutting out the middle man ? may lead some to ask why labels are necessa- ry at all. If we can do without distributors, why not skip 152 iCommons at the Digital Age labels as well and go directly from artists to consumers? The answer is that labels fulfill an important filtering and focu- sing function. In fact, the breadth of available netlabel out- put is already impossible to keep track of today. Value-added editorial services targeting online music are still in their infancy and need reinforcement. Finally, it remains an unanswered question how artists can make a living off of their compositions in a world of digital distribution. Here netlabels cannot provide a solution. Having a supportive environment that allows artists to devo- te their full time and energy to their work is important and desirable ? otherwise our community is restricting itself to produce amateur quality work. Creative Commons licensed netlabel music is not the answer to all of the music industry?s problems and it does not claim to be. However, the existing free netlabel scene has already established itself as a fertile proving ground for upcoming talent and hobby enthusiasts ? and as such it is destined to stay. * Bj?rn Hartmann, Contexterrior Media - Textone Netlabel (Berlin/Palo Alto), has been involved in the international electronic music community for nearly a decade. After playing in several traditional bands, Bj?rn first became active in the tracking scene in Germany during the mid-1990s, both as a composer and as a sysop of a song swapping BBS. In 2000, Bj?rn co-founded the vinyl label Tuning Spork Records in Philadelphia, which continues to release quirky club music. In 2003, he launched the netlabel textone.org, which introduced established recording artists to free online publishing using Creative Commons licenses. As a DJ, Bj?rn has played throughout Europe, the U.S.A. and Japan; his productions can be heard on his own labels as well as on other imprints such as Background Music and Mille Plateaux. Bj?rn Hartmann holds bachelor?s degrees in Communication and Digital Media Design and a master?s degree in Computer and Information Science from the University of Pennsylvania. He is currently a PhD candidate in Computer Science at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. You can contact him at bh@bjoern.org. For more information, plea- se refer to his website at http://bjoern.org/.1 http://www.archive.org/audio/netlabels.php2 http://www.finalscratch.com/3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netlabel4 http://www.phlow.net/5 http://www.de-bug.de/6 http://freebitflows.t0.or.at/7 http://www.wizards-of-os.org/8 http://www.mem-koeln.de/9 http://www.textone.org/10 http://www.microbiorecords.net/11 http://surfaces.tinkle.lt/ 153 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S ? i C O M M O N S U N D D I E A L L M E N D E P R O B L E M AT I K E N Ellen Eu l e r, Thomas Dre i e r* R?sum? L?article s?interroge si Creative Commons est un bien commun au sens des recherches sur les Commons et si certains aspects de ces recherches peuvent ?tre significativement appliqu?s au projet Creative Commons, notamment en ce qui concerne la durabilit? (qui a int?r?t ? archiver le tout et ? le garder accessible dans le futur?), la pollution (si les contenus peuvent ?tre d?charg?s sans co?t, qui en garantit la qualit??),le comportement de cavalier libre (si ceux qui ne participent pas en profitent, o? est la motivation ? participer?) et la d?g?n?rescence (qui prend soin des Commons et les adapte en fonction du changement de jurisdiction ?), aussi sur le transfert ? Creative Commons et son sens. Abstract The article deals with the question whether Creative Commons is a Commons in the sense of the Commons research, and if cer- tain aspects of Commons research can be meaningfully applied to Creative Commons, specifically certain problematics of Commons such as sustainability (who has an interest in archiving the whole and keeping it accessible for the future?), pollution (if everyone?s contents can be uploaded without cost, who garantes the quality?), freeriders (If even those who don?t contribute profit, where is the incentive to contribute?), and degeneration (who takes care of the Commons and adapts it to changes in jurisdiction?) also on the transfer to Creative Commons and whether this viewpoint is mea- ningful. 155 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives Aufzug Der Aufsatz setzt sich mit der Frage auseinander, ob C re a t i ve Commons ein Commons im Sinne der C o m m o n s forschung ist und ob sich Aspekte der Commonsforschung, insbesondere Commonsproblematiken wie zum Beispiel die Nachhaltigkeitsproblematik (wer hat ein Interesse daran das Ganze zu archivieren und f?r die Zukunft verf?gbar zu halten?), Ve r s c h mu t z u n g s p roblematik (we n n jeder seine ?Inhalte? zu Nullkosten abladen kann, wer garan- tiert dann Qualit?t?) Trittbrettfahrerproblematik (wenn auch die profitieren, die nichts beitragen, worin liegt dann der A n reiz ?berhaupt was beizutragen) und Ve r w i l d e r u n g s- problematik (wer pflegt die Commons und passt sie an Rechtsver?nderungen an?) auch auf Creative Commons ?ber- tragen lassen und ob diese Betrachtungsweise sinnvoll ist. Einleitung In einem Buch ?ber Creative Commons und iCommons er?brigen sich lange Ausf?hrungen ?ber das Projekt selbst. Es w?re ?u?erst erm?dend f?r den Leser, wenn er in jedem Buchbeitrag zun?chst mit einer begrifflichen Erl?uterung konfrontiert w?rde. Umfangreiche Informationen zu der Idee und der hinter Creative Commons stehenden Philosophie (Erhalt des Internet als Medium f?r den freien Austausch von Inhalten) sowie zur praktischen Durchsetzung (Bereitstellung von modularen Lizenzvertr?gen) und zum Ablauf von iCommons (weltwei- te Anpassung der Lizenzvertr?ge an nationale Rechtsordnungen), findet der Leser auf der Seite der Organisation selbst: www.creativecommons.org. Eine unn?tige Wiederholung von allseits Bekanntem soll vermieden werden. Daher werden auch die spezifischen Besonderheiten bei der Anpassung der Creative Commons Lizenzen an deutsches Recht (so ist ein vollst?ndiger Verzicht auf das Urheberrecht in Deutschland, anders als in den USA nicht m?glich, ebenso wenig wie ein vollst?ndiger 156 iCommons at the Digital Age H a f t u n g s a u s s c h l u s s )1 nicht detailliert behandelt werden. Diese sind vergleichbar, wenn nicht identisch, mit denen anderer europ?ischer Staaten, h?ngen sie doch mit den Vo rgaben aus Br?ssel, wie zum Beispiel der Verbraucherschutzrichtlinie,12 und der kontinentaleurop?i- schen droit d?auteur Maxime zusammen. Ziel ist vielmehr, den Fokus auf bisher wenig beachtete und beleuchtete Aspekte in der Diskussion um Risiken und Chancen von Creative Commons zu richten. Den ?u?eren konzeptuellen Rahmen soll dabei die Commonsforschung liefern. Wenn Probleme nicht in einen Rahmen eingebettet werden, werden innere Zusammenh?nge verschleiert, was die Analyse erschwert. Der popul?rwissenschaftliche Begriff der Commons ist alles andere als klar definiert. Im Gegenteil handelt es sich dabei um ein ?u?erst diffuses Gebilde, zu dessen Erforschung sich eine eigene Wissenschaft herausge- bildet hat. Im folgenden soll in einem Dreischritt zun?chst die Definitionsproblematik von Commons dargestellt wer- den, dann sollen die verschiedenen Aspekte der Commons aufgezeigt werden und eine Zuordnung von Creative Commons vorgenommen werden, zuletzt soll in einem drit- ten Schritt er?rtert werden, mit welchen Allmendeproblematiken sich Creative Commons auseinan- dersetzen muss. Was sind Commons Der Begriff Commons erlebt seit Jahren einen ungebro- chenen Boom.3 Die internationalen, interdisziplin?ren Abhandlungen zum Thema Commons nehmen stetig zu.4 Auf eine einheitliche Definition konnten sich die verschie- denen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen bisher nicht einigen. Der B e g r i ff Commons findet in unz?hligen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen Verwendung, wobei die Deutung teilweise erheblich variiert, was damit zu erkl?ren ist, das jede Wissenschaftsdisziplin, abh?ngig von ihrem erkenntnis- leitendem Forschungsinteresse, einen anderen Fokus hat. 157 New Models for Cultural Commons:the Examples of Music and Archives Nicht einmal innerhalb der Disziplinen scheint man sich nicht auf eine Bedeutung des Begriff Commons einigen zu k?nnen. Die uneinheitliche Verwendung des Begriffs f?hrt dazu, dass ein Austausch wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse schwierig bis unm?glich ist. Um die Commons wissen- schaftlich genauer zu untersuchen, m?ssen die Begrifflichkeiten vorher klar festgelegt sein.5 Der fruchtbare Austausch verschiedener Disziplinen setzt ein einheitliches Basisvokabular voraus.6 Die Begriffskl?rung und Festlegung ist daher von nicht zu untersch?tzender Wichtigkeit. Definition von Commons Die Exegese des Begriffs Commons bedingt eine histo- rische Betrachtungsweise. Der Begriff ist ?ber einen langen Zeitraum gewachsen und wurde seit den f?nfziger Jahren, beginnend mit der ?konomischen Analyse einer Fischerei von Scott und Gordon,7 st?ndig weiterentwickelt. Nach eini- gen bedeutsamen Ereignissen (Erscheinen von ?The Tragedy of the Commons? von Hardin 1968, The National Research Council?s Annapolis Conference on Common Property Resource Management 1985, die Einrichtung einer Common Pool Resource Bibliothek an der Indiana Universit?t, die Gr?ndung der internationalen Organisation des Studiums des Gemeineigentums (IASCP) 1988 und das Erscheinen von ?Governing the Commons? von Ostrom 1990) hat sich eine eigene Wissenschaft herausgebildet.8 Nicht z?hlbare wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen haben sich seither mit dem Begriff Commons auseinandergesetzt.9 In der Rechtswissenschaft stellen Lessig und ihm folgend im deutschen Raum Lutterbeck, auf den Zugang ab und bes- chreiben Commons als f?r alle zug?nglich,10 beziehung- sweise als eine Ressource, die gemeinsam genutzt und deren Zugriff offen f?r alle Nutzer ist ? unbeschadet ihrer Identit?t oder des intendierten Gebrauchs.11 Litman setzt Commons mit Gemeineigentum gleich.1 2 Auf diesen Aspekt stellt Lutterbeck wohl zus?tzlich ab, wenn er Commons traditio- 158 iCommons at the Digital Age nell mit Allmende ?bersetzt.1 3 Auch im allgemeinen Verst?ndnis wird Commons mit Gemeineigentum gleichge- setzt.14 Choe unterscheidet zwei Typen von Commons. Solche die Ertr?ge abwerfen und solche die Konsumg?ter- und dienste beinhalten. Au?erdem unterscheiden sie sich danach, wie schwierig es ist ihren Abbau festzustellen und sie zu erneuern.15 Erstaunlich ist, dass auf das von der Commonsforschung entwickelte Rahmenkonzept zu den Commons vom Namensgeber der Creative Commons Lessig bisher nicht eingegangen wurde.16 Seiner Betrachtungsweise liegt eine Ideologie zugrunde, die Zusammenh?nge m?glicherweise noch verschleiert. Dabei k?nnte die Ber?cksichtigung der Commonsforschung bei der Analyse von Creative Commons ?u?erst fruchtbare Erkenntnisse liefern. Die A u ? e r a c h t- lassung der Commonsforschung, w?re das aus oben genann- ten Gesichtspunkten, um es mit der Terminologie von Hardin auszudr?cken, eine ?New Tragedy of the Commons?. Festzuhalten bleibt, dass es eine klare Begriffsbestim- mung nicht gibt. Jedoch stehen einige Eckpunkte fest. Dazu im Folgenden. Aspekte der Commons Die von Hardin beschriebene ?Tragedy of the Commons?, (die zwangsweise ?bernutzung, wenn viele Eigner das Recht haben, eine Ressource zu nutzen und keiner den anderen aus- schlie?en darf und die Trag?die, dass die Ressource sich nur erhalten l?sst, wenn man die Nutzung begrenzt, was den Verlust der Freiheit bedeuten w?rde, aber andererseits, w?rde man die Freiheit erhalten wollen, die Ressource verloren w?re), ist wissenschaftlich kritisch hinterfragt und widerlegt w o r d e n .1 7 Es gibt eine Vielzahl von Ressourcen, die ohne Zwangsregelung von au?en, freiheitlich genutzt werden und trotzdem bestehen. Hardin hat also nur einen Sonderfall bes- chrieben. Um aber eine ?bergreifende, empirisch verifizier- bare Theorie, die diesen Sonderfall umfasst, zu entwickeln, 159 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives sind einige wichtige Ausgangspunkte und Unterscheidungen zu beachten, die in jahrelanger Forschung herausgearbeitet worden sind und sich im wesentlichen folgenderma?en zusammenfassen lassen:1 8 1. Es gibt nicht nur private und ?ffentliche G?ter. Zwei Merkmale lassen vier Klassen von G?tern erkennen. Das erste Merkmal von Commons ist, dass der Nutzen des Einen zu Lasten der Anderen gehen kann und das zweite, dass es sehr schwierig und kostenintensiv ist andere von der Nutzung der Commons auszuschlie?en. Diese Sichtweise zugrunde gelegt, gibt es ?ffentliche G?ter (wie z.B. den S o n n e n u n t e rgang, die Luft...), gemeinschaftliche Einrichtungen (wie z.B. eine Bibliothek), Ve r e i n s g ? t e r (Fitnessclub) und Privatg?ter (der eigene PC). Figure 1: Grafik von Charlotte Hess FN 3, S. 120 2. Dies verdeutlicht, dass das Eigentumsregime vom Typ des Gutes strikt zu trennen ist. Es gibt Eigentumsregime die offenen Zugang vorsehen und solche, die ein gemeines Eigentum vorsehen. Bei ersteren gibt es kein Recht andere von der Nutzung auszuschlie?en, alle haben Zugang, bei letzteren haben nur Mitglieder Zugang und ein B?ndel bes- timmter Rechte (a bundle of rights)19, eingeschlossen das Recht andere vom Zugang auszuschlie?en.20 160 iCommons at the Digital Age 3. Unterscheiden lassen sich begrifflich traditionelle und neue Commons. Diese Unterscheidung ist allgemein aner- kannt, umstritten ist nur die Umschreibung. Das Wort neu kann den ungewollten Eindruck hervorrufen, dass die tradi- tionellen Commons nicht neu, also alt sind. Diese Annahme widerspricht der Realit?t, da Commons dynamische Einrichtungen sind, die sich konstant Ver?nderungen, sowie technischen Weiterentwicklungen ausgesetzt sehen.2 1 Vorherrschend werden unter den traditionellen Commons die naturgegebenen Commons und unter den neuen Commons die vom Menschen eingerichteten, zumeist tech- nologiegetriebenen, Commons verstanden.22 Beide k?nnen globalen, regionalen oder lokalen Charakter haben. 4. Eine weitere wichtige Unterscheidung ist die von Ressourcensystem und den Ressourceneinheiten. Beispielsweise B?cherei als Ressource und Buch als Einheit. Diese Unterscheidung in Ressourcensystem und Ressourceneinheit ist sinnvoll bei traditionellen, den nat?rli- chen Commons. Weniger sinnvoll ist sie bei den neuen Commons, weswegen von Charlotte Hess und Elinor Ostrom f?r die ?bertragung der Forschungsergebnisse der speziellen Commonsforschung auf die Informations- wissenschaft und die Wissenschaft des geistiges Eigentum v o rgeschlagen wurde, eine Unterscheidung in Produkt, Einrichtung und Idee vorzunehmen.23 Ein Produkt ist die Verk?rperung der Idee (nicht zu verwechseln mit Werk im urheberrechtlichen Sinne, dass eine gewisse sch?pferische Leistung voraussetzt). Eine Einrichtung sammelt die Produkte und macht sie zug?nglich. Eine Idee ist der nicht verk?rperte Inhalt, die Vision, die dem Produkt zugrunde liegt. Diese Unterscheidungen und Annahmen zugrunde gelegt, ist Creative Commons ein neues (weil Internet- also techno- logiegetriebenes menschengemachtes) und durch iCommons globales Commons mit offenem Zugang. Das Ressourcensystem Creative Commons, besser die 161 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives Einrichtung, bietet einen Pool an Ressourceneinheiten, bes- ser Produkten, und zwar die mit einer CC-Lizenz versehen Inhalte. Allmendeproblematiken auch bei Creative Commons Wenn Creative Commons ein Commons ist, dann k?nnte es auch von den in unz?hligen wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen herausgearbeiteten Problematiken, betrof- fen sein. Es sind dies Tr i t t b r e t t f a h r e r, A b s c h o t t u n g , Freiwilligkeit, ?berlastung, Verm?llung, Nachhaltigkeit, Anreiz um nur einige wenige zu nennen.24 Nat?rlich lassen sie sich nicht alle vorbehaltlos auf Creative Commons ?ber- tragen. ?bersetzt finden sich jedoch einige auch bei Creative Commons wieder. Trittbrettfahrer Creative Commons ist offen f?r alle. Auch f?r diejenigen, die selbst keine Inhalte unter eine CC-Lizenz stellen und also nicht zur Steigerung des Nutzen beitragen, von dem Sie selbst profitieren. In einem nat?rlichen Umfeld die These zugrunde gelegt, das der Abzug von Nutzen durch den Einen zu Lasten der Anderen geht, sind Trittbrettfahrer eine unerw?nschte Erscheinung. Hier im technologischen Umfeld ist von ganz anderen Voraussetzungen auszugehen. Wenn aus dem gro?en Pool der CC-lizenzierten Inhalte ges- ch?pft wird, dann verliert der Pool diese Inhalte ja nicht. Die Besonderheit digitaler Commons ist, dass sie wie Information selbst, immateriell, ubiquit?r und nicht rivali- sierend nutzbar sind.25 Wer ?ber Creative Commons Inhalte verf?gbar macht, will sie verbreiten und je mehr Nutzer f?r eine weitere Verbreitung sorgen, desto besser. Es ist also von einer win?win-Situation auszugehen. Einerseits gewinnt, wer Inhalte ?ber Creative Commons findet, andererseits, wer sie ?ber Creative Commons anbietet. Die Trittbrettfahrerproblematik scheint Creative Commons nicht zu betreffen. 162 iCommons at the Digital Age Anreizprobleme Reicht die M?glichkeit den Bekanntheitsgrad zu erh?hen aber als Anreiz aus, um die Nutzer zur Beisteuerung von Inhalten zu bewegen? Inhalte unter eine Creative Commons Standardlizenz zu stellen, hei?t sie mehr oder weniger unwi- derruflich und unentgeltlich freizugeben. Eine ?berpr?fung gestaltet sich angesichts der Tatsache, das Creative Commons keine detaillierte Suchmaske anbietet schwierig. Die Option ?Suche nach deutschen (bzw. jede beliebe Sprache) Inhalten? w?rde hier weiterhelfen. Die Eingabe Deutscher Worte in die Suchmaske, wie zum Beispiel Aufsatz, f?hrte Ende September zu immerhin sechzig Eintr?gen. Womit jedenfalls die These des homo oeconomicus, des fortw?hrend nach maximalem Gewinn strebenden Menschen, schon widerlegt w?re. Teilweise wird darin ein Aufbegehren, eine neue Bewegung, des sich nach Gemeinschaft und R?ckbesinnung auf soziale Werte sehnenden Menschen gesehen, der instink- tiv vollkommen altruistisch Inhalte zur Verf?gung stellt.2 6 Man darf den in allen Menschen vorhandenen Instinkt dem Gemeinwohl beizusteuern nur nicht behindern, indem man k?nstliche Anreize schafft. Es ist wie mit Kindern, die man f?r ihre Hilfe im Haushalt entlohnt. Sie verrichten diese T?tigkeit, die sie vor der Einf?hrung des Anreizsystems auch so erledigt h?tten, dann nur noch gegen Entlohnung. Creative Commons ist ein funktionierendes Beispiel daf?r, dass auch ohne k?nstliche Anreize und ohne unmittelbare Entlohnung Anstrengungen unternommen werden etwas Gro?es, Gemeines, f?r alle Offenes zu schaff e n . Auch das Anreizproblem scheint Creative Commons nicht zu treffen. Verwilderung / Verm?llung Wie sieht es aber mit der Gefahr aus, dass wenn alle Zugang haben, der gemeine Platz verm?llt? Die einfache und kostenlose Art Inhalte zu verbreiten, wie sie Creative Commons erm?glicht, vorbei an traditionellen Wegen ?ber einen (abh?ngig vom Inhalt) Verleger oder Herausgeber, der 163 New Models for Cultural Commons:the Examples of Music and Archives eine erste Qualit?tsauswahl trifft, f?hrt dazu, dass sich auch solche Inhalte im Pool finden, die keiner brauchen kann. ?Geistiger M?ll?. Ein Problem mit dem sich auch das Internet als Ganzes konfrontiert sieht.27 Es steht zu erwarten, dass das Verh?ltnis von qualitativ hochwertigen Inhalten zu qualitativ minderwertigen ?Trash?-Inhalten bei Creative Commons noch schlechter ausf?llt, als im Internet als Ganzem. Der Anreiz f?r den Anbieter von Inhalten, seine Inhalte mit einer CC-Lizenz zu versehen, ist entweder ein instinktiver solidarischer, oder unter wirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkten, der Wunsch den Bekanntheitsgrad zu erh?hen. Alles ohne Entlohnung. Da es ein alternatives Anreizsystem gibt, n?mlich die kommerzielle Verwertung, wird der Anbieter sich ?berlegen, welche Inhalte er unter eine CC-Lizenz stellt. Vermutlich werden hochwertige und daher lukrative Inhalte eher im Internet ohne CC-Lizenz, als im Pool von Creative Commons aufzufinden sein. Die Verm?llungsgefahr ist bei Creative Commons eher hoch einzusch?tzen. Nachhaltigkeit Auch was die Nachhaltigkeit angeht, sieht sich Creative Commons enormen Risiken ausgesetzt. So sieht sich Creative Commons st?ndigem A n p a s- sungsbedarf aufgrund von Gesetzes?nderungen ausgesetzt. Eine Problematik, die durch iCommons noch versch?rft wurde. Die Adaption an nationale Besonderheiten m?sste aufgrund von Gesetzes?nderungen st?ndig ?berholt werden. Die ?nderung der Lizenzen wie sie Creative Commons vor- nimmt sieht keine automatische Aktualisierung bereits im Umlauf befindlicher Lizenzen vor. Unter Umst?nden ist die CC-Lizenz, unter die ein Inhalt gestellt wurde l?ngst obsolet. Nachhaltigkeit ? Ein weiteres Nachhaltigkeitsproblem r?hrt aus der digita- len Natur der Inhalte, welche unter CC-Lizenzen gestellt werden. Die Langzeitarchivierung digitaler Inhalte ist ein international viel beachtetes und diskutiertes Problem, 164 iCommons at the Digital Age welches noch keiner L?sung zugef?hrt worden konnte.28 Artefakte aus der Steinzeit k?nnen wir heute noch in Museen bewundern, digitale Inhalte haben eine Lebenserwartung von maximal Jahrzehnten, meist nur von Jahren.2 9 Nachhaltigkeit? Soweit aus technischer Hinsicht. So gesehen hat der Pool an Ressourcen von Creative Commons ein gro?es Nachhaltigkeitsproblem. Andererseits darf nicht ?bersehen werden, dass aus juris- tischer Hinsicht Creative Commons ein gro?es Problem zu l?sen scheint: Bef?rchtet wird der Verlust digitaler Inhalte nicht nur in technischer Hinsicht, sondern auch deshalb, weil seine Verf?gbarkeit allein vom Willen Privater abh?ngt. Viele Inhalte liegen auf privaten Surfern und da nur so lange, wie es dem Privaten beliebt. Auf dem Server von im Gemeinwohlinteresse unterhaltenen staatlich finanzierten digitalen Bibliotheken befindliche Inhalte hingegen w?ren in diesem Sinne nachhaltig zug?nglich. Jede analoge Bibliothek verf?gt mittlerweile auch ?ber umfangreiche digitale Inhalte.30 In juristischer Hinsicht ist es in Deutschland so, dass Werke durch Archive und Bibliotheken nur dann online zug?nglich gemacht werden d?rfen, wenn das dahingehende Einverst?ndnis des Urhebers erkl?rt wurde. Alte wertvolle Archive k?nnen derzeit aus diesem Grund im Internet nicht genutzt werden. Wollte man sie online zur Verf?gung stel- len, m?ssten die Urheber herausgefunden und ihre Zustimmung eingeholt werden. Selbst wenn sie damals einer umfassenden Verwertung zugestimmt haben, ist die online Zurverf?gungstellung als damals unbekannte und damit neue Nutzungsart von dieser umfassenden Einverst?ndniserkl?rung nicht erfasst. Die Einr?umung von Nutzungsrechten f?r ?neue Nutzungsarten? ist in Deutschland gem?? ? 31 IV UrhG unwirksam, denn hin- sichtlich noch nicht bekannter, zuk?nftiger Nutzungsarten kann der Urheber nicht vorhersagen, welchen Wert ein 165 New Models for Cultural Commons: the Examples of Music and Archives solches Nutzungsrecht haben wird. Das deutsche Urheberrechtsystem sch?tzt eben vornehmlich den Urheber und nicht den Rechteverwerter, was schon durch die Bezeichnung ?Urheberrecht? und nicht wie im anglo-ameri- kanischen Raum ?Kopierrecht?, deutlich wird. Der so genannte ?zweite Korb? der Urheberrechtsnovellierung will das ?ndern und Gesch?fte ?ber ?neue Nutzungsarten? zuk?nftig erlauben, au?erdem sollen an bisher ungenutzten Archiven sogar ohne weiteren Vertrag gegen eine ?angemes- sene Verg?tung? neue Nutzungsrechte einger?umt werden.31 Bibliotheken k?nnen ihre Archive dann digital nutzen und im Internet zur Verf?gung stellen. An neuen Werken hinge- gen k?nnen sie zwar im Rahmen ihrer finanziellen Ausstattung Lizenzen erwerben, d?rfen diese dann jedoch nur an elektronischen Lesepl?tzen ohne Anschluss an das Internet zug?nglich machen. Das f?hrt in Deutschland zu der widerspr?chlichen Situation, dass man im Information- szeitalter f?r neue digitale Werke die Bibliotheken aufsu- chen muss, w?hrend alte Archive online zur Verf?gung ste- hen. Bibliotheken werden in Deutschland nicht zum elektro- nischen Provider aller digitalen Daten qua Gesetzes erm?ch- tigt. Sie m?ssen sie k?uflich erwerben. Die finanziellen Mittel von Bibliotheken sind aber bes- chr?nkt. Es k?nnen nicht alle Rechte an digitalen Werken erworben werden und die neuen Werke k?nnen insbesonde- re nicht ohne Einverst?ndnis des Urhebers online zur Verf?gung gestellt werden. Eine Vielzahl digitaler Werke kann aus finanziellen Gr?nden nicht in die Sammlung digi- taler Bibliotheken aufgenommen werden. Open Access Lizenzen, wie die von Creative Commons, k?nnten zur L?sung dieses Problem beitragen, weil ein unter eine CC-Lizenz gestellter Inhalt das Einverst?ndnis, ja gera- de den Willen, der online Zurverf?gungstellung ausdr?ckt und das kostenfrei! Inhalte unter CC-Lizenz k?nnen unpro- blematisch archiviert und online zur Verf?gung gestellt wer- den. Sobald digitale Inhalte nicht nur auf privaten Servern, sondern auch auf denen von staatlich unterhaltenen Servern digitaler Bibliotheken liegen, ist deren Nachhaltigkeit im 166 iCommons at the Digital Age Sinne von Zugang, jedenfalls nicht mehr vom guten Willen des Privaten abh?ngig. Das technische Nachhaltig- keitsproblem besteht nat?rlich nach wie vor. F azit Die kurze Aufz?hlung hat deutlich gemacht, dass Creative Commons, wie jedes Commons, mit den ??blichen Verd?chtigen? zu k?mpfen hat. Die Ber?cksichtigung der speziellen wissenschaftlichen Abhandlungen zu den Commons kann den Blickwinkel erweitern und bisher unge- sehene Problematiken antizipieren und entsch?rfen, bevor es zum Dilemma kommt. Der vorliegende Aufsatz will und kann mehr nicht erreichen, als den Beginn einer Auseinandersetzung mit der Fachliteratur zu den Commons anzusto?en. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass Synergien gebildet und L?sungen gefunden werden k?nnen. *Ellen Euler, LL.M., project lead iCommons Germany, Assistent at the ZAR, Institute of Information Law Karlsruhe, M.C.J. Prof Thomas Dreier, Germany1 Zur Notwendigkeit der Anpassung an deutsche nationale Besonderheiten siehe Metzger: h t t p : / / w w w. w i z a r d s - o f - o s . o rg / i n d e x . p h p ? = 7 0 5 s o w i e http://www.wissenschaftskolleg.de/kolleg/veranstaltungen/t11vekalender/juni?hpl=1 2European Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts 3Charlotte Hess: ?Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities: Information as a Common Pool Ressource, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 111 ff. (114), online: www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp66dWinterSpring2003p111.htm#F94 die Bibliographie von Charlotte Hess ?A comprehensive Bibliography of Common Pool Resources? aus dem Jahre 1999 enthielt 22.5000 Eintr?ge, w?hrend die aus dem Jahre 2003 schon 35.000 Eintr?ge zu verzeichnen hatte.5 Charlotte Hess, FN 3, S. 114.6 So auch Christoph Lehner: ?Beitrag zu einer holistischen Theorie f?r die Informationswissenschaften?, in: Fortschritte der Wissensorganisation, ISKO Hamburg 1999.7 David Feeny u.a. 1990, ?The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later?, Human Ecology 18, 1 (2).8 Charlotte Hess, ?Is there anything new under the sun?: A Discussion and Survey of Studies on New Commons and the Internet?, vorgetragen auf der achten Jahrestagung der IASCP 2000 in Indiana, online: http://wizards-of-os.org/index.php?id=934&L=3, S. 2. 9 Zur Geschichte siehe Charlotte Hess FN 8, S. 1 ff.10 Lawrence Lessig, ?Code and the Commons? Anmerkung auf der Konferenz ?Converence on Media Convergence?, gehalten an der Fordham University Law School 1999, online: http://cyber.law.edu/works/lessig/fordham.pdf11 Bernd Lutterbeck, ?Infrastrukturen der Allmende? , Vortrag auf der Konferenz ?Open Innovation! Auf der Suche nach neuen Leitbildern?, gehalten in Berlin 2004, online: h t t p : / / i g . c s . t u - b e r l i n . d e / f o r s c h u n g / O p e n S o u r c e / 2 0 0 4 / L u t t e r b e c k - 167 New Models for Cultural Commons:the Examples of Music and Archives InfrastrukturenDerAllmende-2004-09-16.pdf/view12 Jessica Litman, ?The Public Domain? 39 EMORY L.J. 965, 975 (1990).13 Lutterbeck FN 12.14 Die Online Enzyklop?die Wikipedia erl?utert Allmende historisch und stellt auf die bei- den Aspekte ?Gemeindeeigentum? und ?gemeinsames Recht zur Nutzung? ab siehe: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allmende15 Jaesong Choe, ?The Organisation of Urban Common-Property Institutions: The Case of Apartment Communities in Seoul?, Dissertation an der Indiana University 1992, S.6 f.16 Charlotte Hess, FN 8 Seite 14.17 Beispiele bei Katar Singh, ?Managing Common Pool Resources: Principles and Case Studies? 1994.18 Umfassende Darstellung bei Charlotte Hess FN 3, S. 118 ff.19 hierzu siehe Hess: http://www.info-commons.org/blog/archives/000019.html20 Daniel W. Bromley, ?The Commons, Property, and Common-Property Regimes?, in Making the Commons work: Theory, Practice and Policy 1992, Seiten 3 ff.21 Charlotte Hess FN 8, S. 6.22 Charlotte Hess FN 8, S. 4 ff.23 Charlotte Hess FN 3 S. 129 f.24 Weitere bei Charlotte Hess FN 8, S. 1.25 Andreas Wiebe, ?Information als Naturkraft? in GRUR 1994, S. 233 ff. 26David Bollier, ?Is the Commons a Movement??, Vortrag gehalten auf dem Wizards of OS3 in Berlin 2004, online: www.bollier.org/pdf/BerlinWizardsofOS3speechJune2004.pdf27 zur Frage Internet als Commons: Justyna Hofmokl, ?Internet- the new Commons??, online: http://aoir.org/members/papers42/j_hofmokl_paper.pdf28 USA: www.digitalpreservation.org, Deutschland: www.langzeitarchivierung.de29 Borghoff, R?dig, Scheffczyk, Langzeitarchivierung, 1te Auflage 2003, Vorwort.30 Vergleich digitale Bibliothek der Deutschen Bibliothek unter: www.ddb.de3 1 h t t p : / / w w w. b m j . b u n d . d e / f i l e s / e 2 c f 5 9 a 8 6 7 e 6 1 3 b 3 8 5 8 f a e 0 d f 7 8 0 3 4 8 1 / 7 4 9 / E c k p u n k t e _ 0 9 0904.pdf 168 iCommons at the Digital Age Appendix 169 C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S L I C E N S E A T T R I B U T I O N - N O N C O M M E R C I A L - S H A R E A L I K E 2 . 0 : C O M M O N D E E D 170 iCommons at the Digital Age C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S L I C E N S E A T T R I B U T I O N - N O N C O M M E R C I A L - S H A R E A L I K E 2 . 0 : L E G A L D E E D CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NO T A LA W FIRM AND DOES NOT PR OVIDE LEGAL SERVICES.DISTRI - BUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTOR - NEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP . CREATIVE COMMONS PR O- VIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CRE - ATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PR OVIDED , AND DISCLAIMS LIABILI - TY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE. THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PR OVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PR O- TECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LA W. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHO - RIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED . BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PR OVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 1.Definitions a. ?Collectiv e Work? means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodi- fied form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting sep- arate and independent works in themselves,are assembled into a collec- tive whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be con- sidered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License. b. ?Derivativ e Work? means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, 171 Appendix sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be con- sidered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoid- ance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording,the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a mov- ing image (?synching?) will be considered a DerivativeWork for the pur- pose of this License. c. ?Licensor? means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this License. d. ?Original Author? means the individual or entity who created the Work. e. ?Work? means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License. f. ?You? means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous viola- tion. g. ?License Elements? means the fo l l owing high-level license attributes as selected by Licensor and indicated in the title of this License:Attribution, Noncommercial,ShareAlike. 2. Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws. 3.License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, per- petual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: a. to reproduce the Work,to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works; b. to create and reproduce Derivative Works; c. to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works; d. to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission Derivative Works; The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised.The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats.All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are 172 iCommons at the Digital Age hereby reserved, including but not limited to the rights set forth in Sections 4(e) and 4(f). 4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions: a. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,or publicly digi- tally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients? exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties.You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work,upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any refer- ence to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. b. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,or publicly digi- tally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g.Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License or other license specified in the pre- vious sentence with every copy or phonorecord of each Derivative Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,or publicly digital- ly perform.You may not offer or impose any terms on the Derivative Works that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients? exercise of the rights granted hereunder, and You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties.You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Derivative Work with any technological measures that con- trol access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.The above applies to the Derivative Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Derivative Work itself to be made sub- ject to the terms of this License. c. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 173 Appendix above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, pro- vided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works. d. If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier,if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., ?French translation of the Work by Original Author,? or ?Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author?). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable author- ship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. e. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composi- tion: i. Pe r f ormance Royalties Under Blanket Licenses . L i c e n s o r reserves the exclusive right to collect,whether individually or via a per- formance rights society (e.g.ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the pub- lic performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work if that performance is primarily intended for or directed toward com- mercial advantage or private monetary compensation. ii. Mechanical Rights and Statutory Ro yalties . Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights agency or designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any phonorecord You create from the Work (?cover version?) and dis- tribute, subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions), if Your distribution of such cover version is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensa- tion. f. Webcasting Rights and Statutory Ro yalties . For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a sound recording, Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance- rights society (e.g. SoundExchange), royalties for the public digital per- 174 iCommons at the Digital Age formance (e.g. webcast) of the Work,subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 114 of the US Copyright Act (or the equiv- alent in other jurisdictions),if Your public digital performance is primari- ly intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. 5.Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERN- ING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING,WITHOUT LIMITATION,WARRANTIES OF TITLE,MER- CHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONIN- FRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, AC C U R AC Y, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRO R S , WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. 6.Limitation on Liability . EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK,EVEN IF LICEN- SOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 7. Termination a. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate auto- matically upon any breach byYou of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses termi- nated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses.Sections 1,2,5,6, 7,and 8 will survive any termination of this License. b. Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time;provided,however that any such election will not serve to with- draw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will con- tinue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above. 8.Miscellaneous a. Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You 175 Appendix under this License. b. Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work,Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License. c. If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under appli- cable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement,such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable. d. No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent. e. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You.This License may not be modi- fied without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. 176 iCommons at the Digital Age Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no war- ranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any dam- ages whatsoever, including without limitation any general,special,inci- dental or consequential damages arising in connection to this license. Notwithstanding the fo re going two (2) sentences, if Cre a t i ve Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor. Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trade- mark ?Creative Commons? or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons? then-current trademark usage guidelines,as may be pub- lished on its website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time. Creative Commons may be contacted at : http://creativecommons.org/. This book is available at: www.romillat.fr where you can get further information on the collection [ droit et technologies ] Editions Romillat romillat@romillat.fr N? d??diteur : 87-894 D?p?t l?gal : d?cembre 2004 ISBN : 2-87894-081-4 N? d?imprimeur : Achev? d?imprimer par : Corlet-Num?rique Imprim? en France (U.E.)