[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