[cc-community] What does NC means?
Giorgos Cheliotis
giorgos at smu.edu.sg
Mon Sep 17 23:57:29 EDT 2007
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
> drew Roberts
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:44 AM
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] What does NC means?
>
> 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.
That is ok by me, they do not have to :)
>
> > 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.
If you are referring to the confusion that the definitions of some
licenses can cause I understand this as a practical matter that one may
be able to improve upon in future versions of the licenses. If on the
other hand this is about ideological purity, this can be dangerous. Yes,
a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Whenever I can, I license my output, e.g., PPT presentations of my
research work, under CC-BY. But there are specific reasons why I do so,
and this may not be suitable for every media type and every author.
Also, it is important that I do not depend on my PPT slides to make a
living. Otherwise I would think twice before choosing a license like BY
or BY-SA, so I respect and understand those who are keen to adopt CC but
would rather use a more restrictive license, for their own (rational or
irrational) reasons.
Within every larger movement there are sub-divisions and a confluence of
various other movements and points of view. The benefit from not keeping
CC "pure" is that now there is a very large population of authors using
CC, and you can talk to these authors about the value of using a BY or
BY-SA license instead of the BY-NC-ND they may be currently using, if
this is what you wish to do. As these authors now identify with CC they
may be more keen to listen to you and reconsider their sharing
practices. Plus, by adopting a CC license they have already made a small
step in the right direction.
> >
> > 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.
Not sure what you mean by progress here.
> >
> > 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!
> _______________________________________________
> 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