[cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND
Ŭalabio‽
Walabio at MacOSX.COM
Wed Apr 26 22:17:28 EDT 2006
2006-04-26T13:33:17Z, "Terry Hancock" <Hancock at Anansispaceworks.Com>:
> Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
>> Awhile ago, I did took an impromptu poll and determined that most
>> people hate CC-BY-NC-ND as being antithetical to the purpose as a
>> creative commons (one cannot build on them).
> * How many people did you ask?
> * How did you select your sample?
> * What were the questions?
> * What percent responded with what answer to each question?
I asked this list. It was the under the subject:
“Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Creative Commons”
What I propose is what should be:
I a perfect world, everything would be public domain.
Unfortunately, in the real world, creators have to eat. In our
world, where authors have to eat and the Internet does not exist*, we
would have copyright with a term of fifty years (so that creators can
eat into old age) and fair use would be our fair use plus the terms
of CC-BY-NC-SA. This way, the creators do not have starve or compete
commercially against derivatives of their own works, but everything
is part of a creative commons upon which one can build, at least
noncommercially, even if the work is still under copyright.. In this
other world, people could dedicate their works to the public domain,
and it would have a CreativeCommons.Org so that people could license
their works with licenses time CC-BY, CC-BY-ND (this license would
not apply to noncommercial work), CC-BY-SA, and CC-BY-NC.
I see the purpose of CreativeCommons.Org as creating licenses which
move us toward the aforementioned world. ¿Is not our purpose to
create a creative commons upon which one ca at least noncommercially,
build? At any rate, we need a constitution all licenses must obey.
As it is, no rule exists which prevents the lawyers of creative
commons from inventing the license CC-BY-1k€:
CC-BY-1k€:
By accidently stumbling upon this document, you agree to pay the
creator a thousand Euros.
I admit that this license probably will not make out of the
draftstage, but no rule exists against its creation. As it is, we
have no core-ethics. Without core-ethics, a time might come when
CreativeCommons.Org will create licenses so vile that the even the
abominable CC-BY-NC-ND will seem wholesome by comparison. ¿How about
the license CC-BY-F (F is for fascists, so that only fascists could
create derivative works). I am certain that someone would want a
license like that and CreativeCommons.Org creates license people want.
Some worry that some might leave the project. We cannot be all
things to all people. Some people will leave, but it is better than
the white-male-only license and the vegetarians-eating-oysters-
because-oysters-do-not-have-a-brain-and-therefore-are-okay-to-eat-
only license. Such restrictive license are antithetical to the
concept of a creative commons and therefore, people using such
licenses are not part of thew creative commons anyway. We need to
make a stand against these licenses:
“They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire
worlds, and we fall back. Not again. ¡The line must be drawn
here! ¡This far, no further! ¡And I will make them pay for what
they have done!”
—
Picard, to Lily Sloane
¿Does anyone understand the point I try to make? ¿Does anyone
believe that a constitution which all laws (licenses) mast obey is a
bad idea? Please explain why.
* - In a world with an Internet (which our world becomes), mandatory
licensing makes much sense. Imagine a world with like the world we
hope to create. This world does not have an RIAA or recording
labels. Musicians dump a few copies of their music into filesharing
networks. Let us suppose that the United United States of America
has 100 megaconnections to the Internet and all of them have to pay 5
$/month to a musicianfund. This money goes to musicians based on the
percent of traffic on the filesharing networks. Under this regime,
musicians would be better compensated than now and everyone could
have enormous musical collections. In this world, I would dump stock
in recording labels and buy stock in MP3Players and hard drives.
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list