An article critiquing the Creative Commons by the creators of the Libre Commons project has been published [via Library Autonomous Zone].

It’s an interesting article given recent comments about the CC licenses being a layer. There are some things in Berry and Moss’ article that I agree with, and others that I disagree with. To begin with where I disagree, overall I see Creative Commons as a beginning, a start of the debate about licensing and ownership. Common law and legislation surrounding Intellectual Property will not be overturned in a year, or even a decade. So I think that Berry and Moss’ frustration with Creative Commons is a little premature. On Lessig, they write -

But whereas others who problematise these trends turn to the political, the legal professor’s penchant is to turn to the field of law and lawyers.

But of course, he’s a lawyer, who by his own declaration loves the law, so to suddenly turn from that and consider IP from a different perspective would not seem entirely logical.

I do agree with this observation -

Culture is valued only in terms of its worth for building something new. The significance, enchantment and meaning provided by context are all irrelevant to a productivist ontology that sees old culture merely as a resource for the ‘original’ and the ‘new’. Lessig’s recent move to the catchphrase ‘Remix Culture’ seems to confirm this outlook.

And with this longer, sobering note of the structure of the commons at present -

[T]he Creative Commons network provides only a simulacrum of a commons. It is a commons without commonalty. Under the name of the commons, we actually have a privatised, individuated and dispersed collection of objects and resources that subsist in a technical-legal space of confusing and differential legal restrictions, ownership rights and permissions. The Creative Commons network might enable sharing of culture goods and resources amongst possessive individuals and groups. But these goods are neither really shared in common, nor owned in common, nor accountable to the common itself. It is left to the whims of private individuals and groups to permit reuse. They pick and choose to draw on the commons and the freedoms and agency it confers when and where they like.

It is true that in many ways, the CC licenses serve only to make licensing more understandable, not to change the nature of licensing and ownership overall. Lessig talks at length about permission cultures in Free Culture so I presume it’s an aspect of the CC licenses that will change and become less permission-focused over time.

But what of the Libre Commons licenses? Will they become widely accepted, integrated into blogging and photo software and websites? My guess is no. Firstly, from a cynical point of view, Creative Commons has a great deal of marketing behind it as well as the goodwill of much of the Internet community and word-of-mouth. Secondly, the Libre Commons licenses go too far in my opinion. One of their licenses is called Libre Commons Res Divini Juris .