[cc-education] Intended Meaning of "Non-Commercial"
David Palmer
davidpalmer at westnet.com.au
Sat Apr 9 10:31:41 EDT 2005
Hello,
Mia Garlick wrote:
> Intended Meaning of "Non-Commercial"
>
> Just to clarify a topic that has been the subject of some discussion
> on this list over recent days - the intended meaning of
> non-commercial as drafted in the CC-NC licenses is any use in a
> for-profit environment. The drafting of the license was intended to
> avoid any distinctions based on whether money changed hands or a
> profit was actually made. The relevant factor to consider is whether
> the entity making use of the work has profit as its primary motive.
>
> Hope this clarifies things rather than raises more questions!
>
Chris Lott writes:
'Not really, since this is what Stephen Downes already said which
prompted the original question. So, is the "primary motive" of
University of Phoenix (which has been part of the discussions here) to
make a profit?'
Karen Coyle advises:
'In the U.S. it's fairly easy to determine non-profit from for-profit
organizations, since all organizations have to declare their tax status'.
..................................................
...and in the international setting, most national environments, to
cater for such entities as religious charitable organisations and the
ilk, have the equivalent forms of organisation registration procedures
that are policed through public bodies.
I think that it would be far more 'profitable' for us to rely on these
already established aspects, that also incorporate functions such as
auditing and profit regulation, whereby if an organisation assembles a
'product', in this case an educational presentation incorporating CC
licenced material, they are restricted in regard to the profit margin
they may charge. i.e., if they receive some aspect of that programme for
no commercial fee, there is no corresponding 'commercial profit' for
that percentage of their product. They are quite free to charge, and the
profit percentage is usually set in law to prevent extortionate pricing,
for that aspect of their product that they have had to pay for in order
to create.
It would be possible, and probably quite efficient to have the matter
policed in this way, if we were to liaise with the bodies concerned.
Karen then goes on to remind us, that:
'Most educational institutions are registered as non-profit corporations
(even private universities)'.
..........................................................
as proof that only the façade of one of the primary ingredients of the
Welfare State, free education,exists these days.
Something that, I hope, some of us are in the process of attempting to
reverse here.
And then also:
'There's no way to make the same determination for individuals, however
individual use doesn't seem to be the main concern here'.
...........................................................
...Individual use, though, must be bound by the same law.
Individual use would be employed within two environments:
(1) By small business people operating as consultants or tutors that
would be greatly assisted by a source of economically viable,
instructional material, that would make it possible for them to offer
their end product, at the same price as a larger entity with its greater
buying capacity, enabling them to compete within the same marketplace;
(2) And also by the individual solo learner, that may well have to deal
with living within an isolated rural environment, restricted to
improving their lot in life, after a days heavy work, or possibly an
inmate of a government institution, of a variety of sorts, that would be
able to transcend their normally restrictive environments, and
themselves, along with any number of other possible examples.
I would contend that the individual case *is* the main concern here.
That being catered to, the greater social environment involved will be
amply provided for.
And Greg London, for me, introduces an interesting point:
'Well, it was a concern for me. Does the CC-NC require the person
be a NonProfit entity? Or does it just require "not making a profit?"'
..........................................................
I feel that we must be very cautious when employing terminologies within
a legal context.
There seems to be a very comfortable assumption that the terminologies
of 'profit' and 'commercial' are at least interchangable.
One personality even goes so far as to infer that the term 'profit' is
not broad enough, and only 'commercial earnings' is sufficient to
encompass the full definition.
I would like to see terminologies prescribed so as to cater for the full
definition of 'profit' across the entire social spectrum, while having
the very narrow, tunnel-vision aspect of 'commercial earnings' that lies
within that definition, rigidly defined, and restricted.
I would also like to say, that it can be very comfortable to cater for
an established environment when formulating policy for these exercises.
I don't feel that it is inappropriate to state, that many academic
personalities would be comfortable in protecting the established
situation that provides them, with what they believe they require for
their habitual daily existence. In efficiently doing so, though, they
may very well be not fulfilling the responsibilities inherent in
facilitating a future learning environment of far greater potential than
the one we are restricted to now.
There is a way, if we go about things creatively, to create a
'profitable' environment for all parties concerned.
In a situation where 'commercial earnings' are involved, somebody else
has to pay.
One path leads to a mutually shared enrichment of the common environment.
The other to a restricted earning potential, within a narrow definition
of the terminology, at the expense of the rest, and contributes to the
intellectual poverty of the social spectrum as a whole.
The definitions of these terminologies need to be rigidly defined, so
that the contexts they refer to may be all the more efficiently catered to.
Regards,
David Palmer.
More information about the cc-education
mailing list