[cc-community] What does NC means?
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Sep 17 16:43:54 EDT 2007
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:37 pm, Giorgos Cheliotis wrote:
> Thanks to all who contributed something to this discussion so far, it's
> been interesting to follow. I understand the points about "libre" and
> "gratis", but personally do not have much understanding for fears of
> "contaminating" the libre movement so to say with non-libre content and/or
> ideas. CC's strength in my view lies in the fact that it is inclusive, and
> offers a menu of options, some of which are close to FSF licenses, and some
> of which are not (but are still more liberal than the usual copyright
> restrictions).
I think many do not agree.
> A movement that is more inclusive has greater power, but
> will also have to make compromises to include different needs and different
> points of view.
A house divided and all that???
One major problem is that having this wide of a variety and not easy way to
distinguish causes confusion. Perhaps you have not been exposed enough to
have noticed this yet, or perhaps you do not care enough about it to have
noticed it, but it is out there.
>
> As for CC's social responsibility that Milos keeps talking about, I think
> that CC does have some responsibility towards the users of the licenses,
> but let's not forget that the target users of CC are a much larger and much
> more diverse set of creators than free/libre/open source authors. You can
> license virtually any type of creative work under CC, and this is a much
> larger universe than the comparatively small world of software. This likely
> makes the creation of adequate, well-defined, universally accepted and
> easily understood licenses much more challenging. So I think we shouldn't
> be too harsh in our judgment of the shortcomings of the licenses, although
> pointing them out and suggesting ways of improving them is clearly helpful.
Patience is a good thing. Progress or better feedback could make this easier
though.
>
> Giorgos
all the best,
drew
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Milos Rancic
> Sent: Mon 9/17/2007 10:13 PM
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] What does NC means?
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:46eec997219391804284693!
More information about the cc-community
mailing list