[cc-community] The case for a stricter (or more honest) CC licence than BY-NC-ND

Dr. Peter Troxler (Waag Society) peter at waag.org
Mon Jan 12 10:51:42 EST 2009


Drew

thanks for your comments -- details below.  But here the most  
interesting:

On 12 jan 2009, at 14:32, drew Roberts wrote:
> I don't think that I agree that these are the two things that make  
> cc licenses
> great.

So, I'm curious, what's the things _you_ think make cc licenses great?

Thanks for the pointer to your band's wiki with the income thoughts  
(nice title) -- I'll be going to have a look at this later; and please  
let me know when you find a way to monetize your lyrics.

/ Peter

----- for the sake of closing the loop on some remarks the full  
conversation below -----

> Peter,
>
> first of all, thank you.
>
> On Monday 12 January 2009 01:34:49 Dr. Peter Troxler (Waag Society)  
> wrote:
>> Drew:
>>
>> my reasoning boils down to what Rob said earlier:
>>> it's generally better to concentrate on making money oneself rather
>>> than concentrating on making sure nobody else makes money.
>>
>> or in a more elaborate way:
>>
>> Creative Commons licenses are great because they achieve two things:
>> -- they put the author/creator in control of her/his rights
>
> Surely this is the copyright holder and not necessarily the author/ 
> creator.
Correct
>
> Still, possibly in most cases that might interest us they are the  
> same?
Indeed
>
>
>> -- they reduce transaction costs in licensing there rights to others
>
> I don't think that I agree that these are the two things that make  
> cc licenses
> great.
>>
>> CC have chosen a modular approach to this which is embedded in  
>> current
>> copyright legislation and rights management practice
>> - attribution is now mandatory
>
> I still think that this is the first failing. BY should be optional  
> and there
> should possibly be a chosen mandatory NOBY.
>> - the creator can choose for SA if s/he believes in viral licensing
>
> I still am not sure viral is the right metaphor unless you deem these
> licenses "nasty" - these sorts of copyleft licenses are rather  
> designed to
> grand and protect Freedom.
granting and protecting freedom it is, some people call exactly that  
"viral", but I get your point in not liking this expression
>
> My copyleft licensed work is not going to somehow jump to and infect  
> your
> copyrighted work except possibly in ways which even ARR works can  
> jump to and
> infect other works.
>
> You would have to make the choice that using my BY-SA work in yours is
> important to you and that it is better for your to release your  
> resulting
> work BY-SA as well rather than bother to work out some other license  
> with me
> on the side.
>
>> - the creator can choose for NC which seems to be reasonable in some
>> circumstances (eg. the case of collecting societies)
>> - the creator can choose for ND
>> (and of course the creator can choose for traditional (c) and rights
>> management, and should do so if s/he believes in the efficiency of
>> national collecting societies)
>>
>> unlike traditional (c) people who argue along the lines that
>> "copyright is eternal" and copying material equals theft (which is an
>> argument I don't really understand since if somebody makes a copy I'm
>> still there with my original/copy), CC licensing lowers the hurdle to
>> copy stuff and makes the legal dealings so much easier.
>>
>> putting any CC license on a work, in a sense, conveys the message of
>> "copying is OK".  putting a (c) "All rights reserved" on a work
>> conveys the message of "copying is NOT OK".
>
> Gotcha on the paragraph.
>>
>> but this is only the legal basis -- once we've got that out of the  
>> way
>> (and I repeat: through standard licenses CC makes it easy and
>> efficient to get the legalities out of the way, in most cases) --  
>> then
>> we can think about how to make money.  And IMHO that's the much more
>> important part of creativity.
>
> I don't agree that this is the more important part of creativity.  
> However, I
> personally find the "issue" of earning from Free works to be an  
> interesting
> one.
It's not "the more important part" "of creativity" -- but it's the  
more important part of the commercial/non-commercial discussion (not  
how do I prevent others from making money but how do I make money) --  
I should be more careful in writing ;-)
>
>
> For instance: http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Income
> is a list of ideas I am putting together for a band I have written  
> lyrics for.
>>
>> Some people make money by performing (which might be hard for a
>> writer),
>
> Since I write and don't currently perform, this is one of the  
> problems I need
> to solve.
>
>> others make money by selling hardcopies, other make moneys by
>> working for an academic institution, others make money by attracting
>> funding or sponsorship, and others decide not to make money at all.
>> CC have started to collect examples of how people (still) make money
>> if they offer (some of) their content to copy for free (see
>> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Casestudies) , and I bet there is  
>> more of
>> this stuff becoming available this year.
>>
>> the clue in all these cases is not to make something that others
>> cannot "legally" copy, but something that other cannot copy because
>> they don't have the skills, knowledge, position, network, etc. to
>> create that added value their customers are willing and able to pay  
>> for.
>>
>> / Peter Troxler
>> / Public Project Co-Lead
>> / Creative Commons Netherlands
>> / www.creativecommons.nl
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community



/ Peter Troxler
/ Public Project Co-Lead
/ Creative Commons Netherlands
/ www.creativecommons.nl
/
/ c/o Waag Society :: Nieuwmarkt 4 :: 1012 CR Amsterdam :: The  
Netherlands :: +31 20 557 9898









More information about the cc-community mailing list