[cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
evan at bad.dynu.ca
Tue Nov 22 17:40:30 EST 2005
On Tue, 2005-22-11 at 22:33 +0100, Antoine wrote:
> If you are given a CC'ed MP3 file, you have the right to re-create a WAV
> file from that MP3 file, under the same CC license. (well, provided the
> CC license is not an -ND license)
> But that does *not* give you the right to claim an existing WAV file is
> also CC-licensed, when it actually isn't.
You are making the mistake of thinking that a CC license applies to a
digital file rather than a creative work. That is just not the case.
> A copy is not the same of the original; whether it has been "creatively
> altered" or not is irrelevant. [...]
> Remember our discussion about the FAL: in the digital world, everything
> is a copy.
So, by your reasoning, nothing is an original. Is that correct?
You seem to be falling into the fallacy of conflating two meanings of
the word "copy". One meaning is for naming several identical things; the
other is for the relationship between an original and a replica.
> The author decides, and the user complies.
That's probably the most convincing argument: that the copyright holder
has misused the CC licenses and meant that only a particular fixed form
is redistributable. I think if they explicitly said, "You may not
distribute the WAV file", I think a judge would find that the explicit
statement of license is more binding than the implicit one.
Barring the explicit prohibition, though, I think things would go the
Just my opinion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses