[cc-licenses] NC considered harmful? Prove it...
gmaxwell at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 22:01:01 EST 2007
On 3/7/07, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> Let's say that we do find the NC domain being built on in a vibrant way.
> Getting a lot of derivatives. We could easily end up with no one being able
> to profit from the best of the works in that domain. If we want artists to be
> able to earn a living from their art if they so choose and they are good
> enough in the eyes of their market, then this is something that should
> concern us.
A minor nit... It doesn't make sense to talk about "the commons of
works" because the freeness or existence of a work is irrelevant
without people to benefit from it. Even just talking about the artist
is a fairly narrow perspective. I think it makes the most sense to
talk about the freedom of the public.
A world of NC content is a world where you lack the freedom to use
your resources to encourage an artist to make a derivative that you
want which he would not otherwise make, if you choose. It's a world
where you don't have the freedom to pay a distribution to locate and
provide content to you in a manner you find valuable.
Some people think that with the Internet -- with Napster, Youtube,
blogs, and what have you -- that other forms of distribution are
unnecessary... but I think that this is a very myopic perspective
which ignores an entire world outside of the middle-class person in a
first-world country sitting in a chair in front of a computer.
I think it's especially troubling that the Creative Commons' latest
clarification has been to permit advertising on sites that distribute
NC content. So someone won't be able to make a good living by helping
me get what I want... but they will be able to make a great living by
blasting me with advertisements, spyware, and payola. Just wonderful.
More information about the cc-licenses