Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] sampling + 1.0 and remix competition, with prize for winner

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] sampling + 1.0 and remix competition, with prize for winner
  • Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:34:19 -0400

On Friday 07 July 2006 01:00 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> > Quoting Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>:
> > > Well actually, I'm not entirely sure about that. I have my 4
> > > freedoms pretty much:
> > >
> > > 1) I can use the work (listen to it)
> >
> > Unless you need to re-encode it (which is not covered by Fair Use in
> > some countries).
>
> Even if not, the NC clause would certainly regard that as non-commercial
> use.
>
> > > 2) I can pass it on to my friends (because that's non-commercial)
> >
> > Copying and distribution of the entire work is prohibited under
> > Sampling. Sampling Plus allows noncommercial copying and sharing,
> > yes.
>
> Yes, it's only "Sampling Plus" that we are discuss -- see subject line.
>
> > p2p sharing is defined as commercial use under US law. This is
> > something CC have had to work around for NC.
>
> What do you mean "work around" -- the NC clause surely permits P2P,
> right? Work-around or no, we have the right in the end.

Haven't the courts held that trading music is a commercial activity? That is,
I can make a copy and give it to you and it not be commercial, but if I do it
with the expectation of you doing likewise, then it is commercial. Something
along those lines. Thus CC needing to put in the disclaimer to allow it as
license defined non-commercial even though the courts would hold it to be
commercial otherwise. (Actually as having a market benefit or something like
that, my memory of the language used when the decision came down is hazy.)
>
> > > 3) I can modify the work to my needs (and now the NC goes away)
> >
> > Under sampling plus this strips the NC yes. Under sampling it's not
> > there anyway. But under NC sampling plus it doesn't.
>
> Irritatingly complex. But I never liked NC anyway.
>
> > > 4) I can share my modified work (even commercially)
> >
> > You cannot use it in advertising however. I know, I know, but it's
> > still a restriction. :-)
>
> I think you're wrong. The license says I cannot use the *original
> work* in advertising -- except to advertise the *derivative work*
> (an interesting exception that I didn't really expect). I certainly
> can use the *derivative work* for any commercial use, which would
> certainly include advertising.

I would not be so sure about that if you only then pulled out a piece that
was
deemed to be from the original and not transformative enough wrt that
particular piece. Still, you may be right. Just another thing I would not
risk a court case on and so stay away from if it were me.

This does bring up an interesting point once again though. If my thought
above
(not my position mind you) is right, how could you then release the resulting
work as BY-SA? Surely someone getting a BY-SA work should be confident of
their uses just by following the BY-SA? Would they need to go back to every
attributed piece and check licenses and applications? So, perhaps you are
indeed right...
>
> I read it twice, and I'm pretty solid on this point.
>
> > > It's interesting, because, really, it's the "transformative" uses
> > > that really matter in terms of the copyleft culture.
> >
> > As an artist certainly these are the uses I wish to make. But in fact
> > all uses count equally. If we cannot listen or share we cannot
> > transform. We must not privilege creation/transformation above the
> > work of distribution and consumption when considering use, otherwise
> > creation/transformation will suffer.
>
> What do you mean by "must not"? I lose track of people's politics
> here, but I thought you were of the opinion that free-licensing is
> a matter of the artists' choice?

I would guess the "otherwise" is the key word in that. As in "We must not do
X
otherwise Y will occur." Y being something we both agree is not wantet.
>
> > > I agree that FSF and DFSG guidelines would probably come down on
> > > the side of it being non-free, but it's in an interesting and more
> > > useful case than the By-NC or By-NC-SA (which prohibit the
> > > transformative commercial case).
> >
> > Oh certainly. I love the Sampling license, even if I'd never use or
> > recommend it. BY-NC and BY-NC-SA (notice the ordering of terms...)
> > are what happens when you privilege creativity/transformation to the
> > detriment of creativity/transformation.
> >
> > > IOW, it's easy to produce a "free as in speech" work -- all I have
> > > to do is disintegrate the original into samples or patches, and the
> > > unordered collection is a free work in the FSF/DFSG sense.
> > >
> > > At least, that's my understanding at this point.
> >
> > I think you would not be able to distribute the samples raw, you
> > would have to use them in a derivative work. And there is no
> > requirement to "provide source".
>
> Now there's where I want to see an official clarification. Maybe I
> should create the "slow beat, staccato sampled percussion remix".
> In reverse. Or maybe ordered by pitch or randomized.
>
> You know, that goes:
>
> "sample1 __ sample2 __ sample3 __ sample4 __ ..."

Right, you can't use the whole work in your derivative unless... Example
might
be useful. Good and Bad.
>
> > > Hmm. Well, I think that what constitutes "transformation" is
> > > probably subject to interpretation. In a big way.
> >
> > I can tell you two things that won't work ;-) :
> >
> > * "I have transformed this work by altering its context."
> >
> > * "I have transformed this work because I say so."
>
> Sure, but I'm not sure I care about those cases. If I want the original
> work, I'm going to listen to the original work, from the original source.

I think the issue is that if it were not transformed enough you could easily
defeat the non-commercial bit and end up with a BY-SA and sell it whereas the
original author wants to be the one selling it. (That is my guess.)
>
> And even if that fails, there are ways to get it. The problem for
> me with NC terms is not mainly the distribution chain, but rather
> the fact that I can't really use it as creative input. Sampling Plus
> is more usable than that.
>
> That's what happens with free software in practice, even if it's not
> strictly required by the licenses.
>
> Mind you, I'm not challenging the idea that Sampling Plus
> is "less free" than CC-By or CC-By-SA (except for the interesting
> point that Sampling Plus allows the derivative to be further
> restricted than CC-By-SA -- but I'm not sure I like that part).
>
> Of course, some people would argue that Sampling Plus provides
> only the rights that "fair use" should already have given you. But
> I understand that legal cases have knocked that down. Maybe the
> law should really be changed to obviate Sampling Plus -- but until
> then, I have to say I like it better than, say "By-NC-SA".
>
> By-NC-Sampling+ though, sounds like spawn of the devil. I hadn't
> thought of that one.
>
> How much material exists under Sampling+ (or better yet,
> what's the easiest way to answer that question myself?). Doesn't
> seem to be included in the pie-charts CC published this year and
> last.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
(da idea man)
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page