cc-NME (no monetary exchange)
email at greglondon.com
Fri Apr 29 13:59:52 EDT 2005
Rob Myers said:
> On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 04:28PM, Greg London <email at greglondon.com>
>>Rob Myers said:
>>> On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 03:45PM, Greg London <email at greglondon.com>
>>>>Namely, I would like to propose some sort of
>>>>license that would not allow any monetary exchange
>>>>whether it be for profit or nonprofit.
>>> How would this compare with the GPL's "reasonable fee" for media?
>>> How would I pay for the bandwidth to fetch nme-licensed media?
>>> These may just be questions of fine tuning, but a poorly tuned nme license
>>> could produce content that no host or network will touch with a bargepole.
>>Obviously, it would be moot if no one can transmit the work.
>>But a smaller loophole with a small list of unknowns
>>is better than a big loophole with a big list of unknowns.
> It's not so much a loophole as the possibility that the very requirement may
> be impossible as phrased. That is, some monetary exchange will in some way
> accompany any delivery of content.
> Therefore a GPL-style clause stating that paying for media is OK might be the
> best limit. This would not allow 501k's or state educational institutions to
> charge through the nose for NC content, and would not make NME content
> problematic for peer-to-peer networks existing on commercial services (ie all
> of them).
> But then again if enough NME content was sold then even just charging (a
> little over the going rate) for media might make money. So this isn't truly
> noncommercial. But then we're back to relative loophole sizes (and I agree
> absolutely the smaller the better, and NC does seem to be the greatest
> potential source of loopholes in the license modules).
My beef is that a non-profit organization can be nearly identical
to a normal corporation without shares of stock or dividends.
I don't mind something "reasonable" that would cover the cost of
hosting bandwidth via advertising, but I do not like the idea of
being able to sell books "at cost". I know this means its specific
to a particular medium, but the cost of hosting is a lot smaller
compared to the cost of a physical book. You can transmit a copy
of a book from a website for pennies. a POD book printed up will
cost 10 to 20 dollars.
Perhaps the solution is to set the maximum price that can be charged
to a customer be so many pennies. Not the profit from a customer
but the total price from a customer. This would apply to the amount
of money that a website could get from advertising PER reader.
Alice could host Bob's work on her website, but she could get,
at most, one-one-thousandth of a cent per hit from advertising.
Hm, then the problem is whether or not a TV network gets this
much money per viewer.
Set the maximum money exchange to $20 a month or something.
hm. alright, forget all that. it sucks.
Tell me about the GPL's definition of the word "reasonable" again...
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law.
More information about the cc-licenses