Only seven weeks after my posting about the Dropping Knowledge Business Model I received an anwer in the OpenBC forum.

Daniel Kruse, the dropping knowledge editor, wrote:

Dear All, I apologize for the very late reply – the Table demanded all people´s power. I´m trying to keep track of the groups needs now more actively and in time. I think I have a very short and convincing answer to this discussion: Please consult our press release clearly outlining the CC and Copyleft licenses we use http://www.droppingknowledge.org/web/downloads/press_release… Lawrence Lessig, Founder of Creative Commons, is an active supporter of dropping knowledge and was personally present at the Table of Free Voices press conference. If you can name me an example, where dropping knowledge ever earned a revenue for its produced media or collection of questions and answers – please let me know Sorry for being so late again. All the best: Daniel

There is subtle difference between the CC licenses and the Copyleft licenses used by droppingknowledge.

A creator (e.g. Jane) keeps her copyright when she publishes a manifestation of her work under a CC license (e.g. the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share-Alike license). A creator (e.g. Mike) gives his copyright away to dropping knowledge when he publishes a manifestation of his work on your platform under your so-called Copyleft license. Then dropping knowledge keeps the copyright of Mike’s work when they publish it under a CC license (e.g. the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share-Alike license).

For consumers there is no difference. In both cases they can view and share the content as long as they do not charge money for it.

For dropping knowledge there is an important difference. The knowledge repository (all the content produced by the creators) may be considered a collective work whose copyright was licensed to dropping knowledge through the so-called Copyleft license. So dropping knowledge owns the copyright to use this content for commercial uses (e.g. feature films, documentaries, commercials,…). This is what I called the dropping knowledge business model in my original blog entry.

Imagine Jane and Mike become famous, because the content they published on the internet is really cool. Jane may license her work for commercial use (e.g. a TV commercial). Because of CC she keeps the copyright of her work and may negotiate a different license with a commercial publisher. Mike will never be able to negotiate a commercial license, because he gave away all his rights to dropping knowledge.

Sorry, your answer was not convincing.

I found a very elegant way to describe my world model. Using Stanley N. Salthe’s specification hierarchy from his Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory, I assume that the world consists of:

{ physical space { digital space { logical space } } }

where

1. physical space is the space inhabited by physical objects and beings (e.g. human beings (Users), Rooms, Devices,…)
2. digital space is the space in which digital Content exists (e.g. Data inside Devices, Networks,…)
3. logical space is the space in which user Experience takes place (e.g. sound, vision, thought, senses in our brains)

According to David J. Chalmers, there are two concepts of mind: psychological consciousness and phenomenal consciousness. If I interprete his model correctly, I can upload my psychological consciousness (e.g. behaviour resulting from perceptions) to the digital space or express my psychological consciousness in the physical space. But my phenomenal consciousness (e.g. conscious experiences resulting from sensations) always stays in the logical space.

Roberto García González is the maintainer of the Semantic Digital Rights Management System (SEMDRMS) project providing an OWL ontology for the main rights expression languages, MPEG-21 REL and ODRL. In his thesis Roberto models the copyright core concepts as a web ontology. I can imagine that there will be interoperable DRM services based on publically available specifications (e.g. by the DMP) and copyright ontologies. These DRM services (like e.g. a service to identify content) will be implementated as web services.

Roberto has published all his work under a Non-commercial share alike Creative Commons license. As a consequence commercial DRM services based on his ontology (like e.g. services by a collective management society for their paying members) will need to acquire a separate license for commercial users (dual licensing). Otherwise commercial service providers will violate Roberto’s Creative Commons license.

Since copyright law is by it’s nature pretty dynamic, Roberto’s copyright ontology will evolve over time. I predict that the non-commercial services will always be more up to date, since Open Source development cycles are shorter. Thus non-commercial implementations of the copyright ontology will be more compliant with existing legislation than commercial implementations. Paying money for commercial snapshots of Roberto’s ontology would not be a good investment.

In a way Roberto’s decision to use a Creative Commons license could ensure that the notion of copyright in the digital space will not be controlled by a private enterprise. Instead automated reasoning across a copyright ontology will be a public service in the digital space.

Endlich mal eine gute Definition der Schnittstelle:

Kapielski sagt: Bei Schnittstelle muß ich immer ans Brotschneiden denken. Da weiß ich genau wo das ist, die Schnittstelle, da wird nämlich eine neue Stulle gemacht, eine Schnitte. Und diese komische Schnittstelle ist ja zunächst einmal Nichts und dann ist es eben eine bestimmte Stelle, wo ich einen Entschluß fasse, na, genau hier werde ich mal Stulle machen und dann fresse ich die Stulle auf und es bleibt eine Kante, sonst nichts, und hinterher ist das, was vorher Nichts war plötzlich eine Verbindungsstelle, namens Schnittstelle.

gefunden bei Chodzinski

Delpech Mode, the first group of the 150ies (70+80) are celebrating their first 100 days. Note that the copyright to the video ‘Enjoy the loir et cher‘ is protected by the Right of parody: France’s Intellectual Property Code Art. L 211.3(4) exempts “parody, pastiche and caricature, observing the rules of the genre”.