Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
nsincaglia at musicnow.com
Thu May 19 15:51:10 EDT 2005
>BTW: Why is CC not revising the DRM clause for 2.5?
I second this motion. This DRM clause only makes sense in a P2P file
sharing environment. There are far too many cheap digital distribution
and broadcast methods that use DRM or encryption and therefore make the
use of CC content only applicable for small projects with limited
promotion and distribution.
Let me explain what I have concluded after several months of studying
If I put together a really creative project that uses CC material that
might be broadcasted, transmitted, stored or transferred using many
common digital standards that use DRM or encryption, I will have to
negotiate an individual license with all the artists to remove this DRM
clause. There is no need for the CC license in this case. In fact, I
would recommend anyone who plans to use CC content do this because you
never know in the future how others will want to further distribute or
broadcast your project.
The CC license is fine for people who want to print up 100 CDs to
distribute at their local coffee shop. But if a college radio station
wants to broadcast your CD and simulcast the broadcast on the internet
using encrypted Real Audio streams, you will need to seek permission
from the artists or violate the license.
As I see it, this DRM clause is an obstacle to creating a healthy
business ecosystem for the creative community. Artists need others to
take an interest in their art and have these other people use their
time, money and connections to further promote and distribute these
works. Originally I thought the CC licenses were a means to side step
the lawyers and time consuming contract negotiations until I read the
DRM clause. If I experience any success at all with a project I put
together using CC licenses, I may quickly find another promotional or
distribution opportunity in which DRM or encryption is inherent in the
system which will mean I will need to go back and locate the artists and
negotiate a license that does not contain the DRM clause. As a result,
it would put the brakes on any momentum that I may have created for that
project and spook any third party that might be able to further promote
and distribute the project. So, one might as well just negotiate up
front these licenses rather than putting a lot of work into a project
that uses CC licenses and risk the possibility of not being able to
locate an artist to negotiate this contract during a critical period of
Making licensing less costly, time consuming and confusing is an
incentive for others to take interest in CC content. Without these
incentives for others to put their own time, money and effort behind
these creative works, only a fraction of the full potential of these
creative works will be realized. I actually thought that is why these
licenses were created in the first place. If the licenses only eliminate
one's ability to take advantage of many of the cheaper digital
distribution and broadcasting methods, it drives up the cost and effort
required to promote and distribute the works and it removes the
incentives for the small independent business person to take a chance on
unknown art by an unknown artist.
How can the independent artist and the independent business communities
come together and compete in a meaningful way against the corporate
media machines when we can't even play on the same playing fields?
"Mr. Lessig, tear out this clause!" - a derivative work based on Ronald
Regan's speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987 ;-)
From: Gottfried Hofmann [mailto:toddd at mypse.goracer.de]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:28 PM
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
> If CC is going to separate Attribution out
> from all the other licenses and require
> authors to specify CC-BY-NC when they want
> attribution and CC-NC when they waive attribution,
> then that is another solution.
A CC-NC would be very suitable for any form of media that has
attribution "in itself" (like MP3 ID3 Tags or end credits of movies).
A CC-SA would be very suitable for developers of free game media.
BTW: Why is CC not revising the DRM clause for 2.5?
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses