zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Jan 22 11:40:17 EST 2012
On Sunday 22 January 2012 10:57:45 Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 January 2012 08:35:46 Anthony wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:21 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> >> > Putting an NC on it forbids the making of copies when the purpose of
> >> > making the copies is for commercial purposes... Right?
> >> Maybe, though it's rather unclear what that means. The attempt of NC
> >> licenses to accomplish EULA-type restrictions without being an EULA,
> >> is one of the main reasons it's a bad license.
> > A EULA and a conditional license to copy are two vary different things
> > aren't they?
> Depends who you talk to. The legal status of EULAs is very much in
As it should be, especially the shrink wrapped ones.
> > With a EULA, you buy a copy and then the EULA seeks to further restrict
> > what you can do with the legally obtained copy you have. The EULA says
> > you can't do things with the copy you purchased that the law would
> > otherwise allow.
> And that, it seems, is the intent of the NC license - to restrict you
> from doing things with your legally obtained copy that the law would
> otherwise allow.
Oh no, If someone makes me a gift of a BY-NC photo, surely I can sell it when
I no longer want it.
> The mechanism of the license is to attempt to restrict people from
> making copies for the purpose of doing things that the law would
> otherwise allow.
It is the law that does not allow the making and distribution of the copies.
It is the license that allows them to be legally made.
> But that makes for a big mess. What happens when
> the commercial use was not expected at the time the copy was made?
> What happens when the person making the copy is not the person using
> the copy for commercial purposes?
Perhaps fine. As far as I can figure. Let's say I fall in love with your BY-NC
photo and thing that you are the best photographer ever and want to spread
the news about how great you are.
So I print up 8x10 1,000 copies of your photo. I go around town and hand them
Someone else legally comes into possession of ten copies. What would prevent
them from selling them in an ad hoc fashion?
Having a "friend" give them 10 digital copies which they then "print and sell"
might be a different thing though.
Basically copyright is built on foundation of sand and is therefore too
complicated for anyone's good. Especially when everyone you know has a very
effective copy machine in their house and likely in their pocket/purse.
> I don't mean for you to answer
> these questions right here in this thread - they are questions to be
> answered in a different thread if anywhere, but I present the
> questions to point out that accomplishing what NC sets out to
> accomplish is no easy feat, and I have serious doubts as to whether or
> not it can be accomplished.
> > With a conditional license to copy, you have no right to make the copy in
> > the first place. You haven't bought a copy from anyone.
> What if you have bought a copy from someone? Moreover, what
> difference does it make if you buy a copy for $1 or if you buy a copy
> for $0?
Well, how did they get the right to sell an NC work? If you bought a BY-SA
copy that is fine.
Buying for $0 is not buying.
Consider arm's length transactions.
> What if you download a copy? Who's making the copy, the uploader or
> the downloader?
So perhaps the restriction needs to be on copying for incorporation into
non-Free works or distribution where incorporated into non-Free works?
> What if you trade for a copy? What if I trade you my copy of one
> song, for your copy of another song?
You have any good Free ones you want to trade?
Here's one with my lyric: http://kompoz.com/p/28999
Send along one of your's in trade...
all the best,
More information about the cc-community