[cc-licenses] Advertising issues

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Jan 10 18:53:14 EST 2006


On Tuesday 10 January 2006 06:20 pm, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 22:37 +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > The thing is, if you control the distribution through copyright, you can
> > close access to those who exploit the availability of your content
> > online, like Microsoft did to their web fonts.
>
> But Microsoft *didn't*.  If they did, corefonts wouldn't work.
>
> > This option is not there for NC
> > content (same goes for BY and SA of course but this is a feature there)
>
> Is it really a feature in the case of BY and SA?  The same method could
> be used to avoid giving attribution, or to avoid licensing under SA, or
> GPL, as the case may be.

It has been a while since I payed attention to the details, but Isn't this how 
the closed drivers bunch handle things with respect to linux? Since they 
don't distribute linux, losing the right to do so doesn't particularly bother 
them.

I have never thought too much about it, but would you lose the right to run 
the program? I don't remember, I will need to look it up.

>
> > So despite what a lot of people seem to think, NC does not give a
> > watertight proof against commercial exploitation.
>
> So despite what a lot of people seem to think, all rights reserved does
> not give a watertight proof against commercial exploitation.
>
> So what?

So, all your boats are gonna sink. (Sorry, couldn't resist the watertight 
theme.)
>
> > This "hole" becomes larger the more the personal computer is made to do,
> > which is the trend, and which will raise interesting questions of its
> > own.
> >
> > Eg is a "web radio" RSS feed that links to a NC music piece available
> > online for automatic loading from your private PC a public performance or
> > a private use? 

On whose part? The feed's part or the private PC part? It does get interesting 
though doesn't it?

If I make those sculpted trees in my yard, can you take a picture of them and 
sell your pictures?

> > Eg a game company could allow people to download their 
> > game as two downloads, one from an external server for the NC bits, and
> > one download from their server for the commercial bits.

Well, technically they would not be allowing downloading the game in two 
downloads. You would download the game. Then you would download artwork from 
wherever to complement the game.

They could get fancy and have all the artwork in modules and supply a 
rudimentary module with the game and tell you how to make other modules.

Surely, even if they didn't, fan sites could and would.

BUT again, I think NC needs clarification before things get out of hand. I am 
sure we have heard of submarine patents. What about submarinf NC copyrights? 
Let the lots of people use your NC work without complaining. When they get 
comfortable with doing so and lots begin to do it, pull and RIAA.
>
> This has nothing to do with NC, which does not add additional
> protections on top of copyright.  Whatever "hole" exists (and I agree it
> is very interesting, search for "client side remixing") is available
> regardless of NC, standard copyright, or anything else.
>
> IANAL, blah blah.

Whobat dobo yobou mobean "blah blah". ~;-)

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list