I always appreciate reading you on El Reg. This time it was interresting again. But I don't think you have a large view enough of the copyright subject here. I agree that the Creative Common will not solve anything. Indeed, it's a pose. But the GPL was a pose as well until it got massively used and makes sense thanks to Linux.
IMO, the central point is the question about rewarding : "And why the reluctance to think about social agreements that reward the gifted people who give us such pleasure?"
That's where the art world probably has gone too far and the geek world fail to do it. The answer is probably in the middle. But that means you assume that :
- there are gifted people
- this gift belongs to them as a property
While I agree on the first one, I don't on the second one. But it's more a philosophical debate of wether we are part of nature or we own nature. And it seems the techno world actually think that we are part of nature and not as a property. That seems counter-intuitive when you compare it to the art world... And in that perspective, the idea is not to market a gift but to create the conditions for it to be "commonly" used by as much people as possible.
Until this is really debated I don't think anything will change. And the techno vs art war will be on.
Nice article, but this time I felt like there was something odd in it. So I sent a comment to Orlowski about it. Here it is :