[cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune

Sincaglia, Nicolas nsincaglia at musicnow.com
Tue Nov 22 08:41:24 EST 2005


Another mistake that is being made here is the definition of a derivative work. 
 
"The statutory definition of a  'derivative work' is extremely comprehensive, including such things as translations, arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, films, recordings, abridgements, condensations, 'or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted'".
 
There is not mention of file formats, resolution or encoding schemes in the law. It is not relevant to the law nor is it relevant to the CC licenses.
 
Nick

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Rob Myers 
	Sent: Tue 11/22/2005 5:56 AM 
	To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
	
	


	On 21 Nov 2005, at 21:26, Daniel Carrera wrote:
	
	> Practical question:  Are the WAV files automatically under the same CC
	> license?
	
	I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
	
	No because they are different works.
	
	The encoding of the same sounds will have different representations 
	as streams of numbers. Therefore they are different works, both 
	derivatives of the original recording or of the score if there is one.
	
	"Hey, now, hey now, now."
	
	MP3: 451365247426123624562467234
	WAV: 985672485629581305487135713
	
	Different derivatives of the same original (and if the MP3 is just a 
	derivative of the WAV the same applies).
	
	- Rob.
	_______________________________________________
	cc-licenses mailing list
	cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
	http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
	

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5102 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20051122/08998f34/attachment.bin 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list