[cc-community] Intellectual Highway Department

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed May 31 16:29:01 EDT 2006

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 09:49 am, Greg London wrote:
> > NC *is* a commons, or so CC would have us think.
> if you can show me where CC uses the word "Commons"
> to describe CC-NC, I will forward them my request
> that they fix it.
> > There is no point in it otherwise
> > (ND would serve the same purpose).
> Of course there is.
> If an artist wants to give away free samples,
> they need to use CC-NC.
> If they give away free samples with CC-ND,
> then I could take their song, upload it to
> Lulu.com and sell CD's on demand.
> NC prevents everyone else from SELLING the free sample.
> >>  No one should be doing anything "commons" like with anything licensed
> >>  CC-NC or CC-ND or any other market economy license.
> >
> > Nevertheless, people do exactly that.
> >
> > What do I tell them?  "Naughty, naughty"?
> > "What you're doing can't be done!"?
> No, you tell them that whatever work they're adding
> to the original will always be at a disadvantage
> compared to the original artist. If they wish to
> contribute anyway, that's their choice. Some people
> like to write fan fiction, and most fanficcers do
> NOT expect to ever get paid. It isn't right or wrong,
> it's just that fanficcers know what they're getting
> into.
> Usually.
>  >>  What's the problem is that you're relating to CC-NC as if it should
> >>
> >>  be a commons or it should put works into a commons area. It doesn't.
> >>  But then, it was never meant to do that.
> >
> > Repetitive, but simply wrong:
> >
> > It certainly /was/ meant to be a commons license, or there never
> > would have been a CC-By-NC-SA license option. It's completely
> > illogical from the perspective you describe -- yet, there it is:
> >
> > (From CC's current "meet the licenses" page).
> >
> > Sure sounds like a promise of commons-like viability to me.
> I ***never*** read it that way. (six asterisks)
> It allows fanfiction and other derivatives that
> aren't commercial.
> I think one of CC's first mottos was "spectrum of rights".
> Only one end of the spectrum is a commons. the other end
> is various stages of cathedral models.
> > As you describe this business model, NC should be abolished, because
> > it offers nothing you can't get with ND. NC is fairy gold entirely.
> I don't have a problem with CC-NC not being a commons license.
> Commons licenses are not the only way to solve a problem.
> Cathedral licenses also solve various problems as well.
> And some of CC's cathedral licenses allow poeple who want
> to use cathedral approaches do so without signing up for
> the DRM-DMCA gestapo clauses that they could use.
> Cathedral licenses that are more liberal than simple
> All Rights Reserved are a good thing.
> > Those people should be using ND, then.  That would make their
> > no-commons intent clear.
> But if they want to allow fanfiction and similar derivative
> works, they just don't want anyone to charge money for it,
> CC-NC is exactly what works.
> > But you're wrong -- artists are in fact using NC in a false hope that the
> > collaborative magic will help them. Creative Commons is contributing
> > to this fallacy.
> I'd have to say that this is the first time I've heard
> anyone say they expected a collaborative, commons-like
> project to spring forth from their CC-NC licensed work.
> But I don't get out much.
> > Artists using CC-By-NC-SA, in particular, are the ones I'm interested in,
> > and they do exist.  They are indeed fence-hangers on the NC/SA line,
> > and I hate to say this, but I have both theoretical and empirical reasons
> > to believe that as things stand, they mostly don't shift to the SA side,
> > but to the NC side.  So SA loses content it might otherwise get.
> Way back when CC was first starting it's licenses,
> I was adamant that ShareAlike not be combinable with
> any other license, for the very reason that ShareAlike
> implies a commons and NonCommercial is the antithesis
> of a commons.
> I don't have a problem with CC-NC but I do have a problem
> with CC-NC-SA. If anyone is using CC-NC-SA, they may as
> well switch to CC-NC because there is no share-aliking
> that will occur on any "commons" sort of scale that would
> need ShareAlike to protect it.
> If you want to get rid of a license, get rid of that
> combination that is CC-NC-SA.

I don't like it either, and I remember some of those old threads. However, the 
one thing NC-SA gives over plain NC is that the derivatives will not be taken 
to NC-ND. (I don't know if some would consider this an advantage or not.)

all the best,

Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

More information about the cc-community mailing list