CC and SMIL
lgonze at panix.com
Mon Oct 20 22:14:02 EDT 2003
From my own perspective the problem with CC was that the attribution
license doesn't say *how* you should attribute. It's more important on
a functional level to know the parentage of a playlist than to know
that angel22536 at aol wrote it. That's the difference between the hand
rolled license and CC attribution-share-sharealike: the hand rolled
license requires that you do attribution by specifying the URL of every
Notice an quirk of the application requirements here. The problem to
solve is that users want to add or delete songs with shared playlists
just like with hoarded ones, so they have to have the right to modify.
At the same time there can't a single source for each playlist; it's
not a canonical object that belongs in source control. Users will
constantly be forking, and that means that identity for the sake of
attribution is hard to do.
That said, I've started using CC in my newest SMIL files. The template
for my own new playlists is something like:
author: some guy
<!-- my own addition -->
<!-- song in the previous playlist -->
On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 17:48 America/New_York, Mike Linksvayer
> Lucas Gonze, who has popped in on this list before, has been blogging
> a lot about SMIL playlists recently. I haven't ever been into
> playlists, but <http://www.gonze.com/index.cgi/2003/10/13#10-12-3>
> pointing at
> really caught my attention for two reasons:
> * It demonstrates client-side remixing -- the end user hears a remix,
> specified by the SMIL file, but no remix is published in the form of a
> mp3 or similar -- the "sources" are untouched.
> * More apropos to this list, I read (excerpt from above SMIL)
> This playlist is free to use and modify in any way you want, except
> the modified version must include this notice and must include a link
> to the version of the playlist that you based your modifications on.
> author: Jim Nachlin
> parent: http://gonze.com/playlists/pride_and_envy_lounge.smil
> parent: http://www.lessig.org/content/audio/
> parent: www.illegal-art.org/audio
> Now this is cool because it grants the user permission to use and
> modify the playlist and charts its ancestry. But it would be even
> cooler if this were done using a CC license and RDF.
> I don't know much of anything about SMIL, but I note that it does
> include a specification for publishing RDF/XML metadata inline
> It would be cool if someone did some research and cooked up some
> examples of including CC license RDF in SMIL for the purposes of
> denoting that the SMIL playlist itself is published under a CC license
> or that individual components of the playlist are CC licensed. Even
> better if you can use dc:source to specify parent playlists/works.
> Anyone want to do this or help with the wording to make it a new tech
> challenge <http://creativecommons.org/technology/challenges>?
> (I note that SVG has a similar metadata capability
> Mike Linksvayer
> cc-metadata mailing list
> metadata at creativecommons.org
More information about the cc-metadata