[cc-community] CC+?

Jon Phillips jon at creativecommons.org
Wed Oct 24 17:29:21 EDT 2007


On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 14:26 +0200, Bodo Balazs wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments, looking forward for an in-depthz discussion if
> you are interested.
> Currently I am woring on the issue of air-tight-ness, by analyzing forum
> discussions of illegal file-sharers on why they decided to go against the
> will of the copyright holders by illegally uploading, distributing their
> copyright protected materiels. I hope to understand the limits and
> possibilities of fan loyalty by doing this. 

Also, if there is some type of relationship between the producers of the
music and the digital files, I believe that they are less likely to
leave this social contract...I would posit that as the scale of a club
increasing, the amount of individuals breaking the social contract would
increase, although to what rate, I think it depends on the popularity of
that recording and the amount of time from conception to consumption.

Jon

> Best,
>  
> b.-
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Giorgos
> Cheliotis
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:54 AM
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] CC+?
> 
> 
> Bodo, 
>  
> glad to see someone exploring the club model in more depth. I have yet to
> read your paper, but from the first two pages I can tell it will get high
> priority on my ever expanding to-read list :)
>  
> My first thoughts on this are that especially when it comes to music,
> limiting sharing and remixing to a club will be very difficult, as it is way
> too easy for the work to be spread with or without the author's consent
> beyond the club. But the club model has potential I believe. For example, a
> club may collectively pay a band to release all the 'source files' to a
> music recording (individual tracks, sequencer files, alternate takes, etc.)
> - such files will likely not spread far beyond the club (if at all), because
> (a) they will be much larger than the mp3 of the final mix, and (b) will
> have extra value only for the fans in the club who are eager to listen to
> alternate versions of the recording or want to take it apart to study it,
> appreciate it and remix it. 
>  
> Giorgos
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Bodo Balazs
> Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 12:39 AM
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] CC+?
> 
> 
> 
> 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 <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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
-- 
Jon Phillips
jon at creativecommons.org
cell: +1.510.499.0894 (80% time)
desk: +1.415.369.8486 (20% time)

Business + Community Manager
Creative Commons
www.creativecommons.org


Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be
legal advice nor should they be relied upon as or represented to be
legal advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice.
You need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons' tools for
your particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate
legal advice from a licensed attorney.



More information about the cc-community mailing list