[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Simplifying Licenses

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Mar 5 07:18:36 EST 2009


On Thursday 05 March 2009 01:07:02 jonathon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 05:35, Ben Finney  wrote:
> >> >        CC-BY-NC-SA is the necessary evil.  We should discourage it but
> >> > allow
> >
> > Putting an NC clause on a work is restricting the freedom of these
> > people, with no real benefit to the copyright holder since they're never
> > going to see money for those uses anyway.
>
> a)  Some people use the NC license, with the hope/expectation that
> re-distribution of the work will be gratis to the recipient.    (And
> yes, I am aware of how a company can sell NC material to generate a
> net profit to that company, and remain within the letter of the
> license.)

There are better ways to ensure this if this is what they wish. Thank you for 
this insight though as I often wonder why people who are not in the game for 
the money use NC anyway.

So far I have:

1. Confused (As in "I am not doing this for commercial purposes so NC must be 
what I want)
2. Dog in the manger attitude.
3. Art is not pure if money is involved.

Now I have another to add.
>
>
> b) The NC license is the only one that enables as copyright holder to
> collect royalty payments made to a collection society on their (the
> copyright holder's) behalf. Depending upon jurisdiction, the copyright
> holder might not have the right to prohibit the local collection
> society from collecting royalties on their behalf;

This does not have to be this way.  It the CS societies would get their heads 
on straight, I could offer a BY-SA license myself and a standard license 
through the CS and the end user could choose which license they wanted to 
avail themselves of. The CS could even ensure that those choosing BY-SA met 
its terms or paid for the other license for me.

As it stands now, from all I gather, none have yet had this insight.
>
> jonathon

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list