[cc-community] CC+?

Marcus Estes marcus at wfmu.org
Mon Oct 15 12:59:08 EDT 2007


Bodo,

Your analysis of clubs as a distribution model is interesting and
potentially very appealing to the bands that I help persuade on a
daily basis to release their work under Creative Commons licenses.

However, Creative Commons does not provide you with the necessary
framework for limiting reproduction of media within club members -
this behavior could only be enforced through implied social contracts.
I personally have doubts that any social norm could be "airtight"
enough to prevent proliferation of media outside the group, especially
when the underpinning legal framework actually encourages this.

I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this though. In cases
where the IP owner would prefer proliferation to be limited to certain
members (say, a fan club), does Creative Commons licensing still make
any sense?

Marcus Estes
Licensing Director
Free Music Archive
WFMU

On 10/15/07, Bodo Balazs <bodo at mokk.bme.hu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I've been thinking about this issue from another perspective: how can you
> convince (C) holders to release their works to a limited number of users,
> like a fan-club, so they can share, remix those works among themselves.
>
> I've written a longer analysis on this topic for an EU financed research
> project we do with CC members in the Netherlands and Finnland. The paper can
> be read here:
> http://www.warsystems.hu/?p=517
>
> b.-
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Terry Hancock
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:52 AM
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] CC+?
>
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, we're talking at complete cross-purposes here. :-)
>
> Actually, THREE separate concepts have been conflated in this little
> threadlet:
>
> 1) tax-dollar financed grants for artistic works
> 2) collecting society systems
> 3) collective purchasing of public rights in a work
>
> 1 & 3 are closer to each other than is 2.
>
> 2 is "collective" in artists. 1 & 3 are collective in buyers. 1 is fully
> coercive (you must pay taxes), 2 is semi-voluntary in some countries and
> coercive in others (depends on the laws surrounding collecting societies),
> and 3 is fully voluntary.
>
> I was talking about 3, but omitted some specific verbage to make this clear.
> Hence the "Mr. Pickypants" post. ;-)
>
> This came up, because I was suggesting that CC+ should be compatible with
> option 3 above, as well as the more common commercial rights deals that it
> was probably designed for.
>
> I think if we want to discuss this any further, we need new threads. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com) Anansi Spaceworks
> http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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