[cc-community] Rcrd Lbl to offer CC and Free as in Beer Music

Marcus Estes marcus at wfmu.org
Fri Nov 16 09:48:38 EST 2007


If preventing the rehosting of content does not align with a website
or company's strategic goals, then CC is probably not the right
license to use.

CC benefits artists by helping them see the web as a platform. But
portals within that platform can't use the hosting of CC content as a
leverage to gain attention and traffic. Once it's licensed CC, the
content can spread elsewhere, legally.

A CC license that would nuance this stance on distribution exclusivity
might be useful in any number of ways. But it would pollute one of the
central ideals of the organization and is not likely to gain any
traction.

On Nov 16, 2007 5:39 AM, Burobjorn <burobjorn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting point. My first thought was to solve this using the
> following idea (I wrote this in a hurry, so excuse my tech jargon..)
>
> 1) Make sure the license is attached to the work (presuming it stays on
> the net..). For an mp3 this means embedding the license info in the
> id3tags. For a pdf this would probably mean using XMPF? Etc etc.
>
> 2) Make sure the attribution includes a certain mark/label/hash which
> has a significant chance of being unique. For instance an sha1 hash of
> the filename including your own namespace.
>
> 3) Make it easy for spiders, robots and search engines (such as
> Google/Yahoo and the like) to plugin in a CC lib which allows for easy
> access to CC metadata. Create a CC spider as a proof-of-concept so
> others will use the lib.
>
> 4) Start spidering and counting the distribution of your work.
>
> Ok, so this is just a first thought and there are numerous ways in which
> this will fail, but perhaps this is a first step towards thinking about
> solutions for this? I don't think we can easily solve this for those
> relying on ad-revenue, but for organisations that need to show that they
> have indeed distributed their work all over the world it just might work.
>
> All the best,
>
> grtz
> BjornW
>
>
>
>
>
> Alek Tarkowski wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > This potential "conflict" between CC licensing and the request not to
> > re-distribute the content is interesting, as it is the same
> > difficulty as the one that Open Democracy has with CC licensing: in an
> > online world where views/hits/clicks count, re-distribution is against
> > the interest of the publisher.
> >
> > I have encountered the same issue in Poland, with an NGO that is
> > unwilling to use CC licenses, even though they fully support the idea -
> > because their financing depends on success of the site measured in page
> > views - and therefore they cannot encourage the spread of content beyond
> > their site.
> >
> > These are cases where interests of the artist and the publisher diverge.
> > For the artists publishing under CC on RCRD LBL, for instance, once they
> > released the track, it makes no difference how far it spreads. (Unless
> > they get a share of ad revenue - it's unclear to me whether that's the
> > case here).
> >
> > So I am wondering whether this will prove to be a difficulty for CC -
> > the fact that our licensing scheme in a way goes against the grain of
> > the ever more popular, ad-based model for sustainability of project.
> >
> > As a side note: it's an interesting strategy - to supplement the legal
> > tool, which the CC license is, with a non-binding, non-legal request.
> >
> >
> >  >alek.
>
>
> --
>
> met vriendelijke groet,
> Bjorn Wijers
>
> * b u r o b j o r n .nl *
> digitaal vakmanschap | digital craftsmanship
>
> Concordiastraat 68-114
> 3551 EM Utrecht
> The Netherlands
>
> phone: +31 30 2444 101
> http://www.burobjorn.nl
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>


More information about the cc-community mailing list