Um, doesn't the "no derivatives" bit of that CC license prevent people from filling in the "[insert name]" blank?
While a creative commons license may be very useful for stuff on the net, I use one with my photos, it really seems to me to not be enforcable.
All creative works are copyrighted by the creator at the moment of creation. However, unless they are registered, the remedies for violations are limited and pretty much worthless. For instance, if not registered, all you can do is recover the value of the material. If registered, you can also recover punitive damages and attorney fees.
So what I do, is about twice a year stick everything I do on a CD spend the 30 bucks to register it and send it off. I have had one instance of a commercial site using one of my photos who first said FU, when I asked them to remove it. They changed their tune quickly when I sent them proof of registration.
Grant,
Actually, no part of the license prevents anyone from doing anything -- only legal action versus breach of copyright might have that effect.
However, the use of the brackets is intended to indicate that it is the SURROUNDING material which is protected, and that the name of a party is to be inserted in the space where the brackets are.
And yes, John, you're right about copyright registration, etc.; a Creative Commons license is a uniform way of disposing of rights in publications within the parameters of copyright law, not a replacement for copyright..
Regards,
Tom
Dear Tom,
Just to be clear, your underlying assumption is that there are no areas of life where the government should be involved that it is not and no areas where it is not involved enough?
I'm not thinking of any counter-examples off the top of my head, but absolutes like "no areas" raise red flags for me.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...just checking...
Mr. X,
You write:
"Just to be clear, your underlying assumption is that there are no areas of life where the government should be involved that it is not and no areas where it is not involved enough?"
Whew ... "underlying assumptions" are a minefield. I think the first thing to do is separate MY underlying assumptions from the underlying assumptions of the platform.
My own, personal underlying assumption is that the state should not exist. Period. By definition, that matches and exceeds your characterization.
However.
The only underlying assumption of the WSPP is that a group using it wants to work for reductions of, rather than increases in, the size, scope and power of government.
That's it. That's all.
There's no "why" about it.
Maybe some members of such a group would be anarchists. Maybe some would be minarchists. Maybe some would be "less government than we have now" types. Maybe some members would, indeed, be of the opinion that there's no area where government is not involved and should be, and no area where it is not involved enough yet.
And, maybe, some of them would be of the opinion that government should be involved in areas it is not involved in, or more involved in areas it is involved in ... but express that sentiment through their involvement in other otganizations, or simply oppose having the "WSPP organization" they belong to address those particular areas at all in its program.
The fact that I may carry a .30-06 when hunting deer does not mean that I carry a .30-06 (or demand that everyone carry a .30-06) when hunting squirrels.
Tom,
Mind if we swipe this WSPP thingy for our li'l group?
Keith
Greene County Libertarian Party Chairman
Keith,
Hey, that's what it's there for!
Tom
Oh, and Keith,
If by "our little group" you mean the Green County Libertarian Party, I'd be especially pleased if y'all adopted the WSPP. I joined the LP in Greene County, I first ran for public office in Greene County, and my first party office was vice-chair of the GCLP.
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
Good, b/c I've already ran it past our webmeister, and I will bring it up at our next meeting.
BTW, Stone sez hey.
Commenting by HaloScan
