Today, Dave Winer “clarifies” what he meant:
The uniform response was that since Cory’s book is offered under the Creative Commons attribution share-alike license, I am not “permitted” to change the author’s name, or charge for the right to a copy. I put the word permitted in quotes, because the responders haven’t explained why Cory’s work is so-protected and my work, which is offered under a standard copyright, isn’t.
Talk about missing the entire point of Creative Commons licensing! Dave’s work is, of course protected in some of the same ways Cory’s work is– i.e. in neither case can you take either work and use it for monetary gain. But the resemblance stops there. One of the central points of the CC position is that under standard copyright, works are overprotected. Unlike Dave’s work, Cory’s license does allow me to print out and distribute the book to friends and classmates, making it available for consumption (and all the other terms of fair use that still apply) and enriching the information ecology. Dave’s work does none of tthose things. This really becomes important when Dave’s publishers decide to stop printing his work, or it goes out of print. Then the knowledge is slowly lost. The increased verticality of copyright, the assumption of protection (and loss) instead of freedom is the central problem with copyright as it stands.
Dave may have bought wholly into the incredibly restrictive copyright law that currently exists, which was created almost wholecloth by big media, but many of us have come to understand that not only is it unfair and gross, but it is killing the creative vitality of our culture.
Where Dave really gets confused (and confusing) is in his conflation of acts like Google AutoLink and an abrogation of his rights. Here it is, quite simply: the minute you publish to the web you have already given the rights to create a derivative work. Why? Because everyone’s browser is going to make a changed copy of the information provided. My fonts, colors, and user stylesheet will interpret the page as they wish, the size of my screen and the type of browser and device will do the same. Every viewing of a web page is, in essence, a derivative work. Google AutoLink is essentially no different– my browser can render a H1 header in a San Serif font that wasn’t intended, it can override styles and underline links that weren’t meant to be underlined, and it can now link ISBN numbers to Amazon if I wish it.
If you want to publish material that can’t be altered in any way, then you need to use some format that doesn’t exist yet. The closest you will get is to publish everything as graphic files, or perhaps in diamond-coated carbonized steel tablets. Otherwise, I’m liable to deface it just as I am liable to cut and paste from magazines and write in all my books.
We allow these things without thought because they don’t involve distribution of the work. I’m not distributing an altered version of Dave’s work– I’m altering the copy he’s already given me. AutoLink and GreaseMonkey do the same, and more power to them. I use them to make the information Dave provides on his site better every day. Thanks, Dave!
[ruminate cc Dave Winer google]