Removing the credits will class as that

really imo no law has been broken its the commons license which is sketchy

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.

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: http://www.questioncopyright.org

Keep up the (ahem) “good work” there, Jon.

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…