[cc-community] Simplifying Licenses

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Fri Mar 6 05:16:34 EST 2009


On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Jessica Coates <j2.coates at qut.edu.au> wrote:

> The creative industries are very different from the software industry (which seems to be the main source of the 'NC is always bad' argument).

The idea that the creative industries are different from the software
industry isn't one I've found borne out by experience. Software
development also provides a real-world historical example of NC losing
in the marketplace of ideas.

Artists who wish to make a living off of appropriation, remixing and
mash-ups understand that they need to be able to make a living from
the work that they produce in this way or at the very least to recover
their costs by selling it:

http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=10

NC doesn't allow that. It enforces a divide between professionals and
amateurs that protects the old economics of the "creative industries"
at the expense of individual artists.

> The simple fact is, most people who want to let kids download their music don't want to let Coke put it in an ad. The NC clause is the most effective way of doing this.

Coke tend to buy music before it is released. And if they want your
music in an add then they can just record a copy under a statutory
licence.

> We'd love to have licences that cover every scenario, but it's just not practical.
>
> And for the time being it seems best to make sure we prevent abuse by large players, and rely on the ability to ask extra permission as a solution for any little guys who are unintentionally cut out.

NC "protects" people from making a living or going pro without the
kind of economics that presupposes the very big media that NC is being
cast as in opposition to.

Preventing large players adding to the commons alongside the little
people seems self-defeating.

Permission culture is the *problem*, not the solution.

- Rob.


More information about the cc-community mailing list