Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives

[Aaron Wolf]

> I have repeatedly pointed to software owner's attempts to smear and
> misrepresent free software advocates and said that this is a good
> reason to have ND.  It gives us the power to take down the most
> offensive misrepresentations of opinion.

Care to cite a single example? I've *never* heard of a case in which
someone misrepresented anyone and an ND license was useful in taking
down the misrepresentation.

And, to be sure, if you actually want to sue someone for fraud, you can
indeed do so if you have a strong enough case, regardless of copyright
issues.

Removing unintentional pauses is absolutely a derivative work. The mere
presence of ND makes most people decide in advance not to do that sort
of useful work. Fair use is irrelevant. Fair use generally *requires*
that the use be transformative, which is not true in the case of editing
the video this way. Otherwise, it's about using small excerpts and such.
Fair use is determined by court judgments anyway. ND has a chilling
effect here.

There are tons of examples of positive derivative work. That's enough
evidence to show that allowing derivatives is valuable. You ask for
"studies" — what is it you want to know? There are *tons* of examples
here. Do you think it's valuable that the makers of that new movie about
Martin Luther King had to write *new* speeches for the movie because
they couldn't use his original ones under copyright? Look at that
example! Copyright *allowed* them to put whatever words they wanted into
Martin Luther King's mouth! It only stopped them from using his accurate
words. So much for copyright helping stop misrepresentation!

How about showing *any* evidence of ND having a positive value?


On 05/16/2015 08:36 AM, Will Hill wrote:
> I have repeatedly pointed to software owner's attempts to smear and 
> misrepresent free software advocates and said that this is a good reason to 
> have ND.  It gives us the power to take down the most offensive 
> misrepresentations of opinion.  Yes, there are many other ways software 
> owners lie and confuse people about free software but having this one power 
> is helpful.  Current law also does nothing to prevent that fraud.  People 
> have argued that things will work out better over all if we could provide 
> modified works of opinion, but no one has shown me any studdies that prove 
> it.  
> 
> I don't think removing unintentional pauses, changing camera angles, or 
> providing a good faith transcript are violations of ND terms.  
> 
> Fair use should cover quotes well enough so that this is not an issue.  There 
> are many RMS quote collections, for example.  I don't think anyone will 
> request those are taken down.  
> 
> On Saturday 16 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> [RMS] should stop using ND. It isn't justified and
>> you haven't provided even a reasonable argument for it that could be
>> discussed.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com