] "Arnold Kling, in his article, Content is Crap, writes,
] 'While there are many Net-heads who share Dan Gillmor's
] [and Larry Lessig's] enthusiasm for Creative Commons, I
] do not. It has little or no significance, because it is
] based on a strikingly naive 60's-retro ideological view
] of how content intermediaries function.'

I recommend this for two reasons. First, and a minor observation, here Slashdot attempts to assemble a thread between a number of bloggers. If all of these people were using MemeStreams, the thread would already be organized and would be much easier to follow. :)

Second, Kling is wrong for all the right reasons. He argues that the Creative Commons License is useless because its simply a way to end run around the publishing industry, and the publishing industry is very important as a filter for the the mass of information available to us. However, and it is probably well understood by the readers of this site, the publishing industry is not a very good filter. They don't find the content we really want, because its too risky or too expensive or because it threatens them in some fundamental way.

We need to put the power to filter in the hands of the people, as we have put the power to elect a government in the hands of the people, and for exactly the same reasons.

And with the power to filter in the hands of the people there is a need, a requirement, for looser copyright restrictions. Artificial Scarcity, in this environment, it what prevents people from getting a hold of your ideas, not the thing that incents you to make those ideas available. And for this reason I think systems like Creative Commons may be quite important.

You're not selling artifically scarce "copy" for cash. You are giving copy away for reputation. Reputation is attention, and you can turn attention in cash.