[cc-community] CC+?
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Oct 10 14:51:14 EDT 2007
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 10:32 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > Along the involuntary collective lines, I suggest that we push for all
> > such financing to require Free licensing on the resulting works as a
> > requirement of obtaining such funding. ~;-)
>
> Heh. Well, drew, I suspect that's in the "if you pay for the system, you
> can run it however you like" category. ;-)
I think you completely misunderstood my point and I may have misunderstood the
point I responded to. I was not talking about the CC+ deal underdiscussion
here.
I thought that the "involuntary collective" bit was referring to government
funding for the arts and what not. So, seperate from anything we are
discussing in the CC realm, my point was that I think no tax money should go
to support works which are not going to be put under a Free license.
>
> I don't think this need to be a political issue
What we are talking about here does not need to be although some legal tuning
could help greatly. Getting the above change made will likely be a political
issue. Do you see any other way?
> -- clearly a funding
> site that funds creation of free-licensed works is going to be more
> popular anyway. There's really not that much motivation to create such a
> system for non-free content, because:
I am only interested in such a system where it would lead to Free content.
>
> 1) Utility is severely reduced for the "public", making them question
> why they should pay anything (no one wants to *pay* for an NC license to
> something)
Well, in my thinking, one way is to tie the Freedom price into the total sales
amount, so that people "buying the CDs" would be contributing to the Freeing
of the work automatically.
>
> 2) For those who simply want to use the work, all they need is a
> download and the right to use it privately (this market is well-served)
>
> 3) Trying to finance NC/ND licensing this way of ARR works is pretty
> pointless -- the main point of NC/ND is marketing, and only an idiot
> charges for people to access their advertisements
I am not interested in it, but some may pay to move NC-ND to plain NC.
>
> About the only thing it could work for is if a major record label wanted
> to "ransom" well-known pop songs to the NC domain. Which actually would
> be forward momentum for us. But, I really doubt they could make more
> money that way than by retaining their ARR and trying to sell copies.
Not worried about those players at this point.
>
> So, I'm pretty sure the market will do what you want without prompting.
Again, I think you missed my point by a mile, but that happens. And I may have
missed the parents point which may have helped you to miss mine.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list