Well well, there have been a few developments in the blogosphere low these past few days.
After a withering season of absence, Kevin Basil has returned with revelations, updates and descriptive verse. This week we also welcome the newest member of the St. Athanasius Blogroll, or Athanasius contra mundum (

Stroll on over and visit Scottish
March 1, 2007
Doesn’t the Creative Commons license eliminate the need for copyright law protection?
Stroll on over and visit Chris J. Davis
March 1, 2007
Yes and no. While the Creative Commons License is a recognized copyright it has not gained widespread acceptance overseas, as well as with some individuals here homeside.
As well as the fact that I now have an added level of intellectual property rights protection which is always a good thing.
Stroll on over and visit Pedro Rosario
March 1, 2007
First of all, I don’t like using the word “intellectual property” or “protection” because these are mostly propaganda terms. I prefer to talk about copyright, patents and trademarks separately, because their purposes are completely different and their effects on society are different. What is true of one of these concepts is almost always not true of the other two.
However, CreativeCommons doesn’t eliminate the need for copyright, on the contrary, it reinforces it. If there was no copyright, there would be absolutely no provisions at all to copylefting (share-alike licenses) nor to provisions to avoid building on the work, or attributing to the author, or using for no-commercial purposes, etc. We should not confuse all of these licenses with public domain.
Also I wish to point out that in a few months CreativeCommons has been widely accepted overseas, and in fact, right now there are literally millions of websites, music, written works, movies, and other works which are covered under CreativeCommons licenses.