[cc-licenses] Version 4:0: second draft suggested change to definition of "noncommercial"
osm at inbox.org
Thu Apr 12 00:35:05 EDT 2012
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether we want to or not treat people differently depending on their
> motives it is simply unworkable.
Well, that is precisely what the NC licenses attempt to do: "You may
not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in
any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
> How can a Licensor enforce a licence when
> the question of whether the licence has been infringed or not is not subject
> to normal methods of proof such as whether money actually changed hands but
> instead rests on the state of mind of the defendant?
Well, once an author has shown a prima facie case of copyright
infringement, the burden of proof shifts to the "defendant" to show
that their use falls within the terms of the license.
I certainly agree with you that it makes things very messy.
But that's what the NC licenses say. Whether or not one is in
violation is wholly dependent on their *intent*, not whether or not
money actually changes hands. (Whether or not money actually changes
hands certainly can be indicative of intent, however.)
More information about the cc-licenses