Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/122

 Effects of License Features

Thanks to the discussions among the first graders, I got a pretty clear understanding of the real effects of the features listed above, which are as follows:
 * First, if no rights are relinquished, all the restrictions in the use of a work shrink the market for it, put its author in a totally dependent position, limit the work’s spread, and twist its normal function in culture and society. Furthermore, a work which is restricted from use by other authors is actually excluded from normal cultural development until the restriction is lifted. Although we discuss copyright here, in reality, it does not matter what kind of restrictions are applied to a creative work: censorship or publishing monopoly or patent or other exclusive rights.
 * Noncommercial use, if allowed, provides some spread of the work. However, the degree to which it can do so is naturally far smaller than in the case of commercial use.
 * The requirement to notify an author of use is just an indirect restriction of use.
 * The requirement to only attribute puts no restrictions on the use of a work, provides the most possible exposure and thus furnishes the conditions for the work’s normal cultural function. (NB: Attribution, in my view, is the one and only requirement that must remain forever and be supported by law. It is the natural and unalienable right of an author. Public use without it is unacceptable and is the only real theft which may happen in cultural affairs. Use of a creative work without attribution is neither normal nor fair, regardless of legality or incentives to the author.)
 * Unrestricted use of a work provides for possible wide exposure. However, without mandatory attribution, unrestricted use allows a user to omit reference to an author and, in such a case, does not serve the author at all.