No, Stephen…

Stephen Downes posits that, “ultimately, the effect of Creative Commons licenses is to *preserve* copyright.” This argument is just silly, and is equivalent to saying that “ultimately, the effect of band-aids is that people will keep having boo-boos.”

Creative Commons licenses are band-aids placed on a severely over-reaching and broken copyright system. Of course we would prefer copyright reform, so that we no longer needed CC licenses. But to suggest that CC licenses preserve copyright is to suggest that the first step in reforming copyright and enabling global sharing is to stop using CC licenses. That’s just plain wrong, but seems to be what Stephen is suggesting.

Since the alternative of Creative Commons exists, there is much less pressure toward shorter copyright terms, and much less pressure for exceptions to copyright, particularly those involving fair dealing.

Really? Really? This sounds like pure conjecture. I would love to see even a single statement from a person in position of influence over national intellectual property policy along these lines. I doubt one exists, but am always happy to be proved wrong.

Even if every IP policymaker in the world used this excuse to continuing to lengthen copyright terms in their jurisdiction, CC is the best tool we have to fight these ridiculous policies. Should we stop using them and, consequently stop sharing, until IP reform becomes a reality? I’m certainly not willing to do that.

The real problem with IP law, and the very first thing we should nullify in my opinion, is the Berne Convention.