Looking back over some of my previous posts, I realized I came across as a bit of a protectionist.

Let me set the record straight: IIAC (I am a Copyfighter), at least by Erik's definition.

I'm a big advocate of fair use. I'm not sympathetic with those who just want to get things for free, but I am sympathetic with those who want to use content they "own" as they please. (Remember, I'm also a big gadget freak and a developer). In fact, I'm planning on writing a paper about fair use with regards to digital music for the upcoming semester. The original advisor I had actually suggested I speak to another professor who would be "more sympathetic" to my views than he is. Apparently, I came off as pretty "leftist".

That said, I'm also a realist. I understand that creators are not going to just give away everything for free. If they feel like they are losing complete control, they are going to resist fair use tooth and nail. If we really want to be able to use things as we see fit, we need to accept certain compromises and come up with a balance that appeases both sides. Fair use should not equate to free reign.

This was at the heart of my syndication/copyright argument and why we should all embrace the Creative Commons. By explicitly carving out allowed uses via license, you remove the uncertainty surrounding what constitutes fair use.

This offers protection to the authors without having to rely on more restrictive rights available to them and yet still allows people to innovate around the explicitly granted rights. In the long run, that is what will foster innovation in both content and technology.