[cc-community] What does NC means?
Milos Rancic
millosh at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 10:13:24 EDT 2007
As I said in one of the previous posts, I don't think that one car
manufacturer is responsible for every crazy person who drives a car,
but I think that it is responsible for making unsafe cars. And car
manufacturers are forced by laws of the most countries to make safe
cars.
CC licenses are not safe. There are is country which is willing to
deal with unsafe CC licenses (actually, it is obvious that the most
countries prefer Mickey Mouse laws). But, CC is responsible to the
Internet community.
As driver is not responsible for bad engine which may explode, user of
license is not responsible if license provider tells her/him that s/he
may share, modify etc. some work while s/he is not making money --
while in the reality s/he is not able to do that. Or: I am not lawyer
and I want to use some words in its *common sense*. I am not
interested to study comparative law to know am I able to do something
or not and on what server I am able to do so. This is not user
responsibility, but license provider responsibility. Even it is not
related to law enforcement, it *is* related to social responsibility.
(Which, obviously, doesn't exist. Or exists only in the relation
between CC and big companies.)
BTW, according to the present situation, it is completely legal to
sell database filled with NC content and "give content for free". This
*is* tricking NC conditions.
On 9/17/07, Peter Brink <peter.brink at brinkdata.se> wrote:
> Milos Rancic skrev:
> > On 9/16/07, Peter Brink <peter.brink at brinkdata.se> wrote:
> >> Milos Rancic skrev:
> >>> 1. NC is not NC, which implies that even authors who have reasonable
> >>> reasons for using NC are not protected.
> >>> 2. It is possible to use NC for anything, which implies that we have
> >>> bigger and bigger mass on the Internet.
> >>>
> >> Do you have any kind of evidence for your accusations? If so - do you
> >> mind sharing it with the list?
> >
> > 1) Besides a number of commercial sites which host NC content and make
> > profit via using them (including YouTube and Flickr) without
> > mentioning that they *are* making money on NC content (are there some
> > note that you are not able to put someone else NC content there?),
> > there is a serious contradiction inside of the terms of such NC usage.
> >
> > Making derivate works is the basic right for every SA license,
> > including BY-NC-SA (as well as BY-NC). If someone uploaded derivate NC
> > work to YouTube or Flicker, s/he allows third party to generate profit
> > by using NC content.
>
> But this is not any fault of the behalf of CC. When you register an
> account at (for example) Flicker you give Yahoo "the license to use,
> distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly
> display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which
> such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only
> for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the
> Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such
> Content from the Service."
>
> Yahoo does not license the content under a CC-license. That this fact is
> not obvoius to the casual user is not a fault of CC.
>
> If someone uploads a derivative work which is licensed BY-NC to Flicker
> then it's the uploader who's violating the terms of the license - not
> Yahoo.
>
> >
> > 2) NC is basically useless outside of Internet which means that it is
> > completely useless in undeveloped countries. For example, in Kenya is
> > not possible to spread any work without their specific commercial
> > network. Also, even in much more developed countries in Europe it is
> > hard to spread any non-commercial document (how many non-commercial
> > "stores" do you have in your neighborhood?).
>
> And? Why is CC to blame for this? Really - this is also not the fault of CC.
>
> >
> > Also, NC content is becoming significant part of the content on
> > Internet (compare Flicker photos:
> > http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/). And it is not possible to
> > make any kind of derivate work based on NC and non-NC content.
> >
>
> So? That's an fully legitimate choice made by the author. Again CC has
> nothing to do with it.
>
> /Peter Brink
> _______________________________________________
> 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