Post Creative Commons

Swiss Cheese Jesus

Sunday, May 22nd, 2005

This afternoon I saw Brian Flemming‘s The God Who Wasn’t There makes the case that Jesus of the New Testament did not exist. Christianity is part folklore (Jesus is one of many purported sons of gods who saved the world through tribulation and death and rose again) and part fabrication (the only shreds of historical evidence for Jesus may be fraudulent or derived from the same).

The parts of the film dealing directly with the ahistoricity of Jesus are informative and entertaining, but not particularly in depth. My only quibbles are tangential to the main theme.

The interview with the principal of the Jesus cultist school Flemming attended as a kid contributes nothing to the argument. The school’s teachings are faith-based, not evidence-based, though the principal backpedals for a moment and says that there is lots of historical evidence that Jesus existed. Zero surprise there. Could’ve been cut to about one minute. I suppose for some Flemming’s personal experience will prove interesting, and it does provide him a nice way to close the film.

The parts emphasizing that modern hard core Jesus cultists are nutty, dangerous, or both felt a bit tired.

Richard Carrier, one of the talking heads in the film, stated that violence and war has increased under Judeo-Christianity. That sounds like untenable speculation to me. First, there are confounding factors, to put it mildly, when comparing the world before and after the rise of the Jesus cult, e.g., changes in technology and population. Second, I suspect one woud be hard pressed to make a case that contemporary societies were or are less violent, cf. China. Third, I understand that primitive societies may have been extremely violent.

Carrier was present at the screening, so I asked him about this assertion. He said that he meant that Jesus cultists were the first to spread their religion with violence. That sounds suspect, but I don’t have any counterexamples. In any case, forced conversion sounds like an improvement over plain massacre.

Finally, one or two of the talking heads gave the impression that they think Jesus cultists are increasingly dangerous. I see precious little serious evidence for this. I find that according to activists, journalists, and nearly everyone else, every problem is critical, increasingly critical, or soon to be critical. Watch the headlines for this phenomena, you’ll see. This sentiment is completely ahistorical and annoys me to no end. Someday I’ll write more about it.

However, these are minor nits. The God Who Wasn’t There is well done and worth watching. The website says “Bowling for Columbine did it to the gun culture. Super Size Me did it to fast food. Now The God Who Wasn’t There does it to religion. ” While entertaining, I don’t think the comparison films “did it” to their targets. The god movie “does it” to the Jesus cult.

The film also makes excellent use of footage from old Jesus movies found at the Prelinger Archives, fair use footage of Mel Gibson’s religious snuff-porn flick. (You’ll be convinced that Jesus movies are cheesy if nothing else.) The soundtrack uses remixes of several tracks from the Creative Commons/WIRED CD, taking advantage of the sampling rights granted. This may be the best and most extensive reuse of public domain and Creative Commons licensed works so far apart from works explicitly about remixing.

A pleasant surprise is that the ending credits say the movie is Creative Commons licensed, though I couldn’t tell which license and the on screen URL (I think http://www.thegodmovie.com/license) and variations thereof are unavailable.

Flemming is using a grassroots promotional strategy for the documentary, leading up to a release on 6-6-06 of The Beast Movie, a fictional thriller with the same idea–Jesus did not exist–at its core.

I wish both projects success. The documentary DVD will be available in a couple weeks. I suggest you buy it, share it, and check out a local screening.

(Above I use “Jesus cultist” in preference to Christian or Xian.)

H C

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005

This music had every cell and fiber in my body on heavy sizzle mode.

Thurston Moore on mixtapes, could be describing me listening to early Sonic Youth or one of my many ecstasy-inducing 120 minute cassettes that I’m mostly afraid to touch, really need to digitize. Yes, Moore relates it all to MP3, P2P, etc., sounding like he’s from the EFF:

Once again, we’re being told that home taping (in the form of ripping and burning) is killing music. But it’s not: It simply exists as a nod to the true love and ego involved in sharing music with friends and lovers. Trying to control music sharing – by shutting down P2P sites or MP3 blogs or BitTorrent or whatever other technology comes along – is like trying to control an affair of the heart. Nothing will stop it.

[Via Lucas Gonze.]

I’d like little more right now than to have Sonic Youth or one of Moore’s many avant projects to release some crack under a Creative Commons license. Had they already you could maybe find it via the just released Yahoo! Search for Creative Commons. (How’s that for a lame segue?)

SemWeb not by committee

Sunday, March 13th, 2005

At SXSW today Eric Meyer gave a talk on Emergent Semantics. He humorously described emergent as a fancy way of saying grassroots, groundup (from the bottom or like ground beef), or evolutionary. The talk was about adding rel attributes to XHTML <a> elements, or the lowercase semantic web, or Semantic XHTML, of which I am a fan.

Unfortunately Eric made some incorrect statements about the uppercase Semantic Web, or RDF/RDFS/OWL, of which I am also a fan. First, he implied that the lowercase semantic web is to the Semantic Web as evolution is to intelligent design, the current last redoubt of apolgists for theism.

Very much related to this analogy, Eric stressed that use of Semantic XHTML is ad hoc and easy to experiment with, while the Semantic Web requires getting a committee to agree on an ontology.

Not true! Just using rel="foo" is equivalent to using a http://example.com/foo RDF property (though the meaning of the RDF property is better defined — it applies to a URI, while the application of the implicit rel property is loose).

In the case of more complex formats, an individual can define something like hCard (lowercase) or vCard-RDF (uppercase).

No committee approval is required in any of the above examples. vCard-RDF happens to have been submitted to the W3C, but doing so is absolutely not required, as I know from personal experience at Bitzi and Creative Commons, both of which use RDF never approved by committee.

At best there may be a tendency for people using RDF to try to get consensus on vocabulary before deployment while there may be a tendency for people using Semantic XHTML to throw keywords at the wall and see if they stick (however, Eric mentioned that the XFN (lowercase) core group debated whether to include me in the first release of their spec). Neither technology mandates either approach. If either of these tendencies to exist, they must be cultural.

I think there is value in the ad hoc culture and more importantly closeness of Semantic XHTML assertions to human readable markup of the lowercase semantic web and the rigor of the uppercase Semantic Web.

It may be useful to transform a rel="" assertions to RDF assertions via GRDDL or a GRDDL-inspired XMDP transformation.

I will find it useful to bring RDF into XHTML, probably via RDF/A, which I like to call Hard Core Semantic XHTML.

Marc Canter as usual expressed himself from the audience (and on his blog). Among other things Marc asked why Eric didn’t use the word metadata. I don’t recall Eric’s answer, but I commend him for not using the term. I’d be even happier if we could avoid the word semantic as well. Those are rants for another time.

Addendum: I didn’t make it to the session this afternoon, but Tantek Çelik‘s slides for The Elements of Meaningful XHTML are an excellent introduction to Semantic XHTML for anyone familiar with [X]HTML.

Addendum 20050314: Eric Meyer has posted his slides.

SXSW & Etech

Saturday, March 12th, 2005

I’m in Austin now through Monday for SXSW and in San Diego Tuesday through Thursday for Etech. I’m sad that I won’t be around for any music showcases this year and that I have to leave Austin for one of my less favorite places, but Etech is the better conference.

I’m helping Matt Haughey with a SXSW panel, The Semantic Web: Promising Future or Utter Failure (I’ll be the SemWeb technologies advocate) and an Etech session, Remixing Culture with RDF: Running a Semantic Web Search in the Wild.

Creative Commons will have other events and a party at SXSW.

Bitcollider-PHP

Saturday, March 5th, 2005

Here you’ll find a little PHP API that wraps the single file metadata extraction feature of Bitzi’s bitcollider tool. Bitcollider also can submit file metadata to Bitzi. This PHP API doesn’t provide access to the submission feature.

Other possibly useful code provided with Bitcollider-PHP:

  • function hex_to_base_32($hex) converts hexidecimal input to Base32.
  • function magnetlink($sha1, $filename, $fileurl, $treetiger, $kzhash) returns a MAGNET link for the provided input.
  • magnetlink.php [file ...] is a command line utility that outputs MAGNET links for the files specified, using the bitcollider if available (if not kzhash and tree:tiger are not included in MAGNET links).

Versions of this code are deployed on a few sites in service of producing MAGNET links or urn:sha1: identifiers for RDF along these lines, both in the case of CC Mixter.

Criticism welcome.

Infoanarchy, DRM and Celestial Jukebox

Monday, January 10th, 2005

On the brouhaha over Bill Gates’ interview with CNET at CES. The relevant bit:

[D]o you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?

No, I’d say that of the world’s economies, there’s more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don’t think that those incentives should exist.

And this debate will always be there. I’d be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned–including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we’ve had the best intellectual-property system–there’s no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they’ve got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.

The “communists” bit is the part that has gotten so many people worked up.

The Response. I enjoy calling out Gates’ idiocies as much as the next person, though much of the response I’ve seen has been a tad ebullient. Microsoft fans don’t create fascist art knockoffs when that company’s detractors incorrectly call it fascist. Glenn Otis Brown has the best response I’ve seen, posted on the Creative Commons weblog.

What Would Brezhnev Do? In a communist state would there be no financial incentives for artists? No, they’d simply be employed by the state. The Soviet Union took information control to extremes, including prohibiting use of photocopiers by scientists. I suspect that had the USSR survived to this day, the KGB would now be furiously trying to make Digital Restrictions Management work so as to gain access to a few of the wonders of computing without permitting open communication.

Advice to Gates. Call reformers anarchists rather than communists. For most people “anarchist” is derogatory and you wouldn’t be telling quite as much of a bald-faced lie.

The Real Issue. Forget labels. Gates’ substantial claim is that strong intellectual protectionism drives economic growth. Gates believes this. He isn’t simply shilling for MSFT’s latest strategy. It is on this point that Gates must be rebutted.

Apologies to you the reader and to Robert Nozick for this post’s overwrought title.

ccPublisher 1.0

Monday, December 27th, 2004

Nathan Yergler just cut ccPublisher 1.0, a Windows/Mac/Linux desktop app that helps you license, tag, and distribute your audio and video works. I’m very biased, but I think it’d be a pretty neat little application even if it weren’t Creative Commons centric.

  • It’s written in Python with a wxPython UI, but is distributed as a native windows installer or Mac disk image with no dependencies. Install and run like any other program on your platform, no implementation leakage. Drag’n’drop works.
  • Also invisible to the end user, it uses the Internet Archive’s XML contribution interface, ftp and CC’s nascent web services.
  • RDF metadata is generated, hidden from the user if published at IA, or available for self-publishing, ties into CC’s search and P2P strategies.

Python and friends did most of the work, but the 90/10-10/90 rule applied (making a cross platform app work well still isn’t trivial, integration is always messy, and anything involving ID3v2 sucks). Props to Nathan.

Version 2 will be much slicker, support more media types, and be extensible for use by other data repositories.

Addendum 2005-01-12: Check out Nathan’s 1.0 post mortem and 2.0 preview.

Search 2005

Thursday, December 23rd, 2004

Many of John “Searchblog” Battelle’s predictions for 2005 seem like near certainties, e.g., a fractious year for the blogosphere and trouble for those who expect major revenues from blogging.

Two trends I hope 2005 proves that Battelle’s predictions missed:

Metadata-enhanced search. Will be ad hoc and pragmatic, pulling useful bits from private sources and people following officious Semantic Web and lowercase semantic web practices.

Proliferation of niche web scale search engines. Anyone can be a small-scale google, crawling the portions of the web cared about and offering search options specific to a niche. The requisite hardware and bandwidth are supercheap and the Nutch open source search engine makes implementation trivial.

The Creative Commons search engine is a harbinger of both trends.

Battelle’s look ahead spans the web, not just web search. Possibly the biggest trend missing from his list is the rise of weblications. Egads, I have to learn DHTML, and it isn’t 1997!

A few of my near certainties: lots of desktop search innovation, very slow progress on making multimedia work with the web and usable security, open source slogs toward world domination, and most things get cheaper and more efficient.

Center for Decentralization

Wednesday, December 15th, 2004

This evening I had the pleasure of attending an open house for the CommerceNet Labs center for decentralization or Zlab. I’ve been meaning to write about Zlab for awhile, and I’m taking advantage of tonight’s event to write without having anything to say.

If I may boil down Zlab’s aim to one paraphrase: Make software that works the way a fully decentralized society would work.

Check out their The Now Economy for a flurry of deep items concerning decentralized commerce and net infrastructure, lab projects that abet the above aim and publications. Of personal interest, see Nutch: A Flexible and Scalable Open-Source Web Search Engine, which uses the Creative Commons search engine to demonstrate how a Nutch plugin is implemented.

Speculate on Creators

Wednesday, November 17th, 2004

Alex Tabarrok writes about An Auction Market for Journal Articles (PDF). Publishers bid for the right to publish a paper. The amount of the winning bid is divided by the authors and publishers of papers cited by the paper just auctioned. Unless I’m missing something all participating journals taken together lose money unless the share of cited authors is zero and transaction costs are nil. Still, the system could increase incentives to publish quality papers, where “subsequent authors will want to cite this” is a proxy for quality.

I’m reminded a tiny bit of BlogShares (“Blogs are valued by their incoming links and add value to other blogs by linking to them”), but especially of Ian Clarke‘s FairShare, which is a proposal for speculative donations:

Anybody can “invest” in an artist, and if that artist goes on to be a success, then the person is reward in proportion to their investment and how early they made it. But where does this return on investment come from? The answer is that it comes from subsequent investors. For example, lets say that you invest $10. $4.50 might go straight to the band, $1 might go to the operator of the system, and the remaining $4.50 would be distributed among previous investors in the band, those who invested more early would get a bigger proportion than those who invested less, later-on. Of course, most people will not make a profit, but they are rewarded by knowing that they contributed towards an artist that they liked, and helped reward others who believed in that artist, and who may have brought the artist to their attention.

Under FairShare participating creators taken together and individually would make money, as payments are from without the system, driven by the generosity and greed of fans and speculators.

A system in the spirit of one or both of these proposals could perhaps help fund a voluntary collective licensing scheme of the sort contemplated for digital music, but conceivably applicable to other types of work.

If the journal market idea really could foster a self-sustaining business model it could be a boon to the open access movement. Restricting access is rather pointless when your main business concern is to get your articles cited.

I’ve rambled about open access models elsewhere.