Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ŭalabio‽ <Walabio AT MacOSX.COM>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org, Cory Doctorow <Doctorow AT Craphound.Com>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND
  • Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:17:28 +0000

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.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page