p2pnet - rss feed: Gordon Brown Creative Commons infringement
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Shame. SHAME!
“After receiving many emails on the subject, it’s been brought to my attention that my NetWorker theme for Wordpress has been used by the government of the UK, and it seems they’ve not honored the copyright agreement,” says Anthony Baggett on his Antbag blog.
What!? Can it be true? Gordon Brown, the prime mimister of the United Kingdom, a pirate?!
Sadly, that’s the way it looks.
To the shame of the UK government, Brown apparently utilised Baggett’s WordPress theme which’d been released under the Creative Commons 3.0 license and which, as Baggett points out, “requires attribution to me whether the theme is modified or not.”
He goes on »»»
The link that I place in the footer of each theme I have available, which points to this website, is the attribution that I expect from each website that uses that theme.
The theme has been heavily modified, and looks very different from the original. However, one look at the source files verifies that it is indeed built on NetWorker.
The website in question is apparently the official site of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and boasts protection under Crown Copyright.
After receiving quite a few emails, I’ve since had several journalists this morning from London email me and request comment. Before responding to any journalists, I sent an email to the company in charge of developing the website(New Media Maze) to try and work this out privately. They claim that they tested the NetWorker theme, but then rebuilt it from scratch. Although they rebuilt it from scratch, they failed to remove the credits in the CSS file that name the theme “NetWorker” or to change the theme folder which is named “NetWorker-10?(Networker version 1.0).
They say this “slight oversight” would fulfill the Creative Commons license anyway. Uh …..
Never mind, though, Anthony. The medium is the message, and getting the message out is what it’s all about.
Meanwhile, the PMO’s office has yet to respond.
Stay tuned.
.
.Stumble It!
Antbag blog - Copyright Flaw of British Prime Minister’s Website, August , 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Mimister
August 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The English are sick to death of the tosser as well.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
http://p2pnet.net/story/16289
Remember our honourable friend Jim Prentice? Pirating a map from Google Maps?
Copyright politicians want to stay above the law, after all, and it is not at all surprising…
August 20th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
This brings up a fascinating contrast: (Don’t blame me — this is what I do!)
On the one hand, Jon Newton et al seem to either be really ambivalent about (or outright dismissive of) the notion of “copyright”, seeing it as either a legal fiction/exploitation/no big deal. Thus, the (for want of a better term) “Party Line” on p2pnet is pretty much unanimous in supporting p2p networks/users/the whole idea of “file sharing”, and downright against the “MAFIAA” and it’s bullying tactics.
But wait: this particular worm turns REALLY EASILY when someone allegedly violates a “creative commons deed”.
This is fascinating to say the least, since the whole concept behind “Creative Commons” is to allow “permissive” licensing SQUARELY WITHIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF COPYRIGHT LAW. That’s right — the vaunted “Free Culture” licenses derive their awesome powers from the same “laws” which p2p users/advocates routinely dismiss, and — importantly — are backed up by the EXACT SAME sort of legal “options” in case of violation.
To put this bluntly, either one approves of Governmentally-enforced monopoly power over so-called “intellectual property” or one does not: there is very literally NO “Middle ground” on this issue, and all of the hairsplitting over penalties being “too strict” or terms being “too long” are ultimately beside the point (as Richard Stallman and others have, ironically, stated many times.
I find it decidedly ironic that a pro-p2p blog which seems to spend the vast majority of it’s time berating various “copyright holders” for what it percieves as “draconian” tactics has just done a 180 on this issue simply because the particular style of licenses involved is “kewl”.
Go here and learn: www.questioncopyright.org
Keep up the (ahem) “good work” there, Jon.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:30 am
Thankfully we dont all subscribe to your view of copyright and how it is abused by commercial interests Henry.
While creative commons does indeed work within the existing copyright framework that is not to say that that is the spirit behind the licence, its a way for those wishing to share their work with a wider community but barring commercial exploitation, even the originator of the work receives nothing.
Its funny how some perceive certain issues as black or white when there are in reality many shades between the two.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
If you look at the gpu license once something has been modified it becomes your peace of work and can be distributed as such.
Removing the credits will class as that
really imo no law has been broken its the commons license which is sketchy