People create the Knowledge and wealth. Sometimes we can get some knowledge from it. But we must respect other people’s intellectual property. So that, there is a problem which name is copyright. Based on copyright practices in the past, people create things and to apply for a copyright for them, and then they do not care it anymore. Yes, this can prevent others from stealing your intellectual property rights effectively, but at the same time, it hinders your research results which were communicated by people. Therefore a lot of knowledge will be buried because of copyright.

Last year, I finish my pre-master Media Production course. In the final project, we made a shot movie ‘fool me once’. We are group work, I was responsible for music editing primarily. From filming to editing, everything is carried out very smoothly. However, I met a big trouble in the music editing. Because that we do not have any equipment to create the music. And I do not think that I have any ability to using the equipment make the music. Because I just studied broadcasting in my old university. Eventually I chose to download the film music material from the Internet and editing them by software which name is cool-edit. The title music I used that is from a Taiwan films’ secret ‘ which is director by the famous music producer Jay Chou. I have been editing the original material as well as I changed some rhythm and key. I use the download music is not means I do not respect other people’s intellectual property rights. Because I do not know where I can apply for the use of the right legitimate. I am just a student for MA Media Production. How can I connected a pop star Jay Chou and ask him, ‘can I use your music in my final project?’

The first creator is great, but from the invention of the past to do the second create is necessary. If there is no body proofing one plus one equals two, how will people create mathematics today? Therefore, we need to share our own creativity to other people.

If we share our knowledge rashly, people will still be the same as the using the pirated, and there is no any benefits for the creators. How can we share the knowledge with a reasonable way? There is an organization which name is creative commons.

Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share. The organization has released several copyright licenses known as Creative Commons licenses. These licenses allow creators to communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they waive for the benefit of recipients or other creators. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons)

Creative Commons in the structure of two institutions: Massachusetts registered in the U.S. corporate knowledge-sharing of public organizations, non-profit registered in the United Kingdom limited liability company of international knowledge-sharing. In addition, each has been the introduction of knowledge-sharing license agreement jurisdictions, volunteer project leaders have to promote the concept of knowledge-sharing work. Knowledge-sharing projects and voluntary international leaders in order to promote knowledge-sharing and licensing agreements and collaborative work tools, but they are independent of each other and separated entities. (http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96&variant=zh-cn)

Copyright is usually the traditional two-bit extreme, one is “All Rights Reserved”, and the other side is “not retain any rights” (that is, the public domain, public domain). Knowledge-sharing between the two is the middle of trying to large to maintain flexibility in a gray area; the creators can “retain some rights.” Provides a wide range of knowledge-sharing options and the terms of the mandate of the form of portfolio creators create to share with the public to grant others the right to re-distribute, but the right to retain some of the other.
Creative Commons, and that is the right person may not wish to exercise all intellectual property rights vested in him. We believe that there are many people who want a simple and reliable to the public stated that “to retain certain rights” or “no rights reserved.” Many people knew a long time, retain all intellectual property rights can not make him work as he had been widely expected, as the spread and distribution. All Rights Reserved compared to the model, entrepreneurs and artists, many now prefer the new business model, because it gives them the benefit of innovation investment. There are a number of free public access license their works in order to be self-fulfilling. Whatever the reason, we are well aware that Internet users are generous and want to share their work, including re-use, modification and dissemination of works. “Knowledge sharing” on the site through a series of agreements provided free of charge, intended to help people share the desire to express desire.

These efforts are in order to counter the dominance of modern society, and increasing binding “permission culture.” This is a traditional publisher, in order to maintain and strengthen its presence in pop music, popular film of the oligopoly to promoting a community culture of [the source of the request]. Creative commons in order to avoid the birth of the modern intellectual property rights and copyright law in the information-sharing problems.

Creative Commons has been described as being at the forefront of the copy left movement, which seeks to support the building of a richer public domain by providing an alternative to the automatic “all rights reserved” copyright, dubbed “some rights reserved.” David Berry and Giles Moss have credited Creative Commons with generating interest in the issue of intellectual property and contributing to the re-thinking of the role of the “commons” in the “information age”. Beyond that Creative Commons has provided “institutional, practical and legal support for individuals and groups wishing to experiment and communicate with culture more freely”. (http://intellectualproperty.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/creative-commons-hongkong-draft-public-discussion/)

Creative Commons works to counter what the organization considers to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive permission culture. According to Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons, it is “a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past”. Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these restrictions.

Creative Commons agreement similar to an open publication agreement (OPL) and the agreement GNU Free Documentation (GFDL). GFDL agreement mainly for software documentation, but can also be used for other such as the Wikipedia non-software project documents. OPL is now disappearing, and he suggested the creation of new projects not to use it. Critics say the agreement OPL and GFDL are not enough “free”, GFDL and CC agreement is different from the distribution of the work it requires to provide a “transparent version of” In other words, can not be a private or secret format.

Creative Commons in the formal operation in 2001, Lawrence Lessig (Lawrence Lessig) is the founder and President. Knowledge-sharing in the original version of December 16, 2002 release. The plan was awarded in 2004, Electronic Arts Award Network Vision Golden Nica Award category.
Creative Commons directors include Lawrence Lessig, James Boyle, such as long-term criticism of the modern intellectual property scholars, professors and lawyers.

The original knowledge-sharing agreement is written in the United States legal system, so the wording may not be able to perfectly suit the existing laws in other countries. Although to some extent, not necessarily the case, but the use of the United States legal system, does not worry about local laws may result in an agreement not be enforceable. In order to solve this problem, the introduction of knowledge-sharing iCommons (International Commons) plan, adjust the legal terminology in order to adapt to national conditions. May 27, 2004, iCommons launched version 2.0. To November 30, 2007 far, 41 countries have completed the localization. Since version 3.0, replaced by the original agreement and related practices of international law to write, called “non-transplant version”, however, the field of justice according to their legal team will still be translated, and transformed into the applicable version of the judicial field.

In the use of Chinese-language countries and regions, the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, China Taiwan localization has been completed. People’s Republic of China officially named as knowledge sharing, China Taiwan’s official name used for a CC, the official name of Hong Kong, China, named for the sharing of ideas.
People’s Republic of China People’s University and by the localized CNBlog.org and March 30, 2006 issued a formal knowledge-sharing version of the Chinese mainland (CC China) 2.5 protocol. January 2008 Creative Commons License 3.0 Hong Kong to enter the stage of the localization of public discussion. And in October 25 2008, it completed the localization. Macau and Singapore in November 2008 to date have not yet carried out the work of the localization of Creative Commons.

There are a lot of examples which are joining to Creative Commons. Nowadays, Millions of pages authorized the use of knowledge-sharing. Media concentration (part from mandate to select knowledge-sharing): Flickr, Internet Archive, Wikimedia Commons, Ourmedia MIT Open Courseware website – academic programs teaching outline. Knowledge-sharing Lessig, founder of (Lessig) 2004 year book “free culture” to take the electronic version of CC authorized immediately in the next few days the Chinese version of the translation and to the blind version of the recording. There is a book “grassroots media.” which was written by Dan Gillmor’s. Eric of three books, “the cathedral and the bazaar” (the first full commercial release and the CC has the copyright of books, published by the media olary ceremony), “New Hacker Dictionary”, and “Unix Arts Programming “(but the three have an additional book) Taiwan rock singer about the letter Zhu of the music album, “Rock and Roll Jesus” is the first piece of CC authorized the Asian record. Golden Melody Awards in Taiwan about the letter the three singers Zhu, Xie Yu-wei, Wang enhong, radio host and others Kun city music album, “the fall of the children” has also authorized the use of CC. Mercury Doctorow’s novel Knowledge-sharing licensing agreement in China released the same day, the whole of China has released the first CD recording of digital film “Pat Pet” from Guangzhou , the use of knowledge-sharing “signed – non-commercial the use of – the prohibition of deduction of 2.5 in China mainland “(cc-nc-nd 2.5 China) agreement. Prevalent in the original onion Internet has been successfully commercialized. “Big Buck Bunny”, Blender Foundation, CC authorized the first two animated films.

However, there are a lot of criticisms with the creative commons. Matteo Pasquinelli (2008) describes two fronts of criticism: “those who claim the institution of a real commonality against Creative Commons restrictions and those who point out Creative Commons complicity with global capitalism”. Pasquinelli specifically criticizes Creative Commons for not establishing “productive commons”.

Critics have also argued that Creative Commons worsens license proliferation, by providing multiple licenses that are incompatible. Most notably attribution-share alike and attribution-noncommercial-share alike’ are incompatible, meaning that works under these licenses cannot be combined in a derivative work without obtaining permission from the license-holder. Pro-copyright commentators from within the content industry argue either that Creative Commons is not useful, or that it undermines copyright.

Some within the copyleft movement argue that only the Attribution-Share Alike license is actually a true copy left license and that there is no standard of freedom between Creative Commons licenses (as there is, for example, within the free software and open source movements). An effort within the movement to define a standard of freedom has resulted in the Definition of Free Cultural Works. In February 2008, Creative Commons recognized the definition and added an “Approved for Free Cultural Works” badge to its two Creative Commons licenses which comply — Attribution and Attribution-Share Alike

We need to create all kinds of knowledge. We also need to understand other people’s knowledge to develop their own thinking. Therefore, we need to sharing others knowledge.  People create their own knowledge information to allow more legitimate reader sharing. This is a developing trend of intellectual property rights. We need to promote such development of legitimate forms. This is also a respect for the creators of knowledge. Our goal is to speed the translation of data into discovery — unlocking the value of research so more people can benefit from the work scientists are doing.

Referents: http://intellectualproperty.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/creative-commons-hongkong-draft-public-discussion/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%9B%E4%BD%9C%E5%85%B1%E7%94%A8

We need to create all kinds of knowledge. We also need to understand other people’s knowledge to develop their own thinking. Therefore, we need to sharing others knowledge.  People create their own knowledge information to allow more legitimate reader sharing. This is a developing trend of intellectual property rights. We need to promote such development of legitimate forms. This is also a respect for the creators of knowledge. Our goal is to speed the translation of data into discovery — unlocking the value of research so more people can benefit from the work scientists are doing.

Based on copyright practices in the past, people create things and to apply for a copyright for them, and then they do not care it anymore. Yes, this can prevent others from stealing your intellectual property rights effectively, but at the same time, it hinders your research results which were communicated by people. Therefore a lot of knowledge will be buried because of copyright. We need to create all kinds of knowledge. We also need to understand other people’s knowledge to develop their own thinking. Therefore, we need to sharing others knowledge.  People create their own knowledge information to allow more legitimate reader sharing. This is a developing trend of intellectual property rights. We need to promote such development of legitimate forms. This is also a respect for the creators of knowledge.Our goal is to speed the translation of data into discovery — unlocking the value of research so more people can benefit from the work scientists are doing.