Arguments that people shouldn't be able to license their own personal creations however they like are anti-freedom.
Every year the arguments against artists having any control of their original work get more and more absurd, and more vicious. I may write a story and not mind if people repost it, but I don't want it used to promote Neo-Nazi organizations, so I retain moral rights. Now I am told that doing so is "Orwellian"? Best to avoid all this copyleft stuff altogether given that if you try to retain any rights at all over your own work the groupthinkers will attack you as being a fascist, when it is they who are the true fascists.
Only today R.E.M. announced they had a moral objection to Fox News using their work "Losing My Religion" to attack the Democratic Party.
Do they have the right to stop Fox from using their work to promote propaganda they are deeply morally opposed to? Probably not, because the US doesn't recognize moral rights of authors and artists as most European nations do. This song is licensed under BMI licensing, which is available to anyone who pays the standard fees. Should we say that R.E.M. are Orwellian fascists who are opposed to free speech because they have publicly announced their displeasure regarding this situation? To do so seems to me to be an insane, crazed position to take, one which attacks the foundations of artistic freedom.
ESR isn't arguing that you shouldn't be able to license your things however you like. He's arguing that creative commons should not promote a license which has surprising negative risks and that they shouldn't associate their brand with a license which is bad for society compare to the most likely alternatives.
Every year the arguments against artists having any control of their original work get more and more absurd, and more vicious. I may write a story and not mind if people repost it, but I don't want it used to promote Neo-Nazi organizations, so I retain moral rights. Now I am told that doing so is "Orwellian"? Best to avoid all this copyleft stuff altogether given that if you try to retain any rights at all over your own work the groupthinkers will attack you as being a fascist, when it is they who are the true fascists.
Only today R.E.M. announced they had a moral objection to Fox News using their work "Losing My Religion" to attack the Democratic Party.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/rem-demands-fox-new...
Do they have the right to stop Fox from using their work to promote propaganda they are deeply morally opposed to? Probably not, because the US doesn't recognize moral rights of authors and artists as most European nations do. This song is licensed under BMI licensing, which is available to anyone who pays the standard fees. Should we say that R.E.M. are Orwellian fascists who are opposed to free speech because they have publicly announced their displeasure regarding this situation? To do so seems to me to be an insane, crazed position to take, one which attacks the foundations of artistic freedom.