[cc-licenses] cc-licenses Digest, Vol 36, Issue 21

REMOVED ****** at gmail.com
Fri Mar 10 13:20:10 EST 2006


Hi.

Thanks for the replies so far.

I am aware that CRC is a bit misplaced in the Creative Commons 
environment. I contacted Lawrence in the first place because I believe 
there is some commonality of ideology for the advancement of culture in 
both creative commons licensing and what I propose via CRC. I was also 
hoping that, if UAL want to help work on and promote the idea, that I 
might be able to garner support for a balanced debate in taking the idea 
forward.

I need help in all areas of development, as essentially I still a one 
man band looking for like minds to work on it. But hey, if I end up on 
my own making contracts with the help of an average lawyer which then 
get ripped to shreds in court then so be it... I'll either go mad trying 
or end up with something that other artists might find useful too.

REMOVED



cc-licenses-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

>Send cc-licenses mailing list submissions to
>	cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	cc-licenses-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	cc-licenses-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of cc-licenses digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re:  Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines (Mia Garlick)
>   2. Re:  Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines (Mia Garlick)
>   3. Re:  NonDerivative NonCommercial Licenses (drew Roberts)
>   4. Re:  Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines (Greg London)
>   5. Re:  Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines (Greg London)
>   6.  Customizable Resales Contract (REMOVED)
>   7. Re:  Customizable Resales Contract (rob at robmyers.org)
>   8. Re:  Customizable Resales Contract (Greg London)
>   9. Re:  Customizable Resales Contract (rob at robmyers.org)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:44:46 -0800
>From: Mia Garlick <mia at creativecommons.org>
>Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines
>To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>	<cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Message-ID: <44A4FA39-8AC9-4906-A6A9-C32480F4D30C at creativecommons.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>hey greg,
>
>thanks. sorry for provoking you. glad that CC can inspire such  
>passion though :-)
>
>rgds, mia
>
>On Mar 7, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Greg London wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Mia,
>>
>>My apologies for my recent outburst towards you.
>>My behaviour was inexcusable. I lost my cool
>>and took it out on you, adding further underved
>>injury to an already thankless job. Given it
>>was such a public outburst I feel it requires
>>a public apology.
>>
>>I am sorry.
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cc-licenses mailing list
>>cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:52:35 -0800
>From: Mia Garlick <mia at creativecommons.org>
>Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines
>To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>	<cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Message-ID: <AF4C7441-D01D-485B-8C75-0D70184604DF at creativecommons.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>hey jonathan,
>
>On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Jonathon Blake wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Rob wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I think that the CC NC guidelines are very good, and I'm very glad  
>>>CC are producing them.
>>>      
>>>
>>They are slightly clearer than the "old" guidelines".
>>    
>>
>
>what are the "old" guidelines?
>
>  
>
>>The three issues I have with them are:
>>i) A. (1.)  (c) defines "allowable NC User" as a non-profit
>>organization.  The footnotes specifies IRS 501(c)(3), and then tosses
>>out six of the ten types of groups.
>>    
>>
>
>i attempted to respond to your earlier comments on this in this  
>posting: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-March/ 
>003308.html which was a bit long so let me recap:
>
>as regards excluding religious organizations given the US definition  
>of a not for profit org excludes  political organizations, the  
>thinking was that there are three things one should not talk about in  
>polite society - politics & religion being two of them. if the  
>community believes that either or both political nonprofits &  
>religious nonprofits should be able to use NC-licensed works, then
>let's change the guidelines to reflect this.
>
>the others were not referred to because they were so specific &  
>arguable come within the category of being charitable orgs. but again  
>- all this can be changed if the community feels necessary &  
>appropriate....
>
>  
>
>>ii) D 1. (d) which allows an organization to "sell" material, as part
>>of its membership drive.  I'm guessing that the idea here is that your
>>local NPR affiliate can print out a book, and give away copies, during
>>their begging for money week.   I can easily see happening, is that an
>>organization prints up the material, and proceeds to "sell" it, under
>>the guise of calling it a "membership" premium.   The shadier the
>>organization, the more likely this is to occur.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>so i also responded to this in the longer posting - short version:  
>offering access to free content in exchange for premium membership  
>renders access conditional upon payment, not optional & thus a breach.
>
>  
>
>>iii) An organization that does not have 501(3)(c) status with the IRS
>>is automatically considered to be using it "commercially."  This
>>effectively eliminates all usage of NC licenced material by government
>>agencies.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>the intent is not to focus on s501(3)(c) because these guidelines are  
>intended to have global reach. we looked to that for guidance &  
>welcome your suggestions & guidance in return. the point you raise  
>about government usage is a good one. it's not an issue that i have  
>seen discussed in conversations about noncommercial use - how should  
>we deal with it?
>
>  
>
>>###
>>
>>For all practical purposes, A. (1) (b) is a subset of A (1) (c), and
>>can be deleted.
>>
>>xan
>>
>>jonathon
>>--
>>Ethical conduct is a vice.
>>Corrupt conduct is a virtue.
>>
>>Motto of Nacarima.
>>_______________________________________________
>>cc-licenses mailing list
>>cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 18:54:45 -0500
>From: drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com>
>Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] NonDerivative NonCommercial Licenses
>To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>	<cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Message-ID: <200603071854.45352.zotz at 100jamz.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On Tuesday 07 March 2006 05:58 pm, Jonathon Blake wrote:
>  
>
>>Drew wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Greg, you do not specifically address his point though. I think from what
>>>you are saying, you would tell him to just use BY-NC and he will get the
>>>same bang for the buck as BY-NC-SA, the thing is, he is considering only
>>>BY-NC-ND or BY-NC-SA.
>>>      
>>>
>>This is an issue I have touched upon before.
>>
>>Based upon the feedback I've had, people do not understand the BY-NC
>>licence.   [Their questions invariably are
>>
>>i) Can I redistribute this?
>>ii) Can I make an extract of this?
>>
>>With either BY-NC-ND or BY-NC-SA, the question I get is "I want to use
>>this in my church. Is that OK.?"
>>    
>>
>
>Regardless of what CC has to say with respect to BY-NC and BY-NC-ND and 
>BY-NC-SA, this link may impact the answer to that question as well:
>
>http://www.mpa.org/copyright/church.html#9
>
>"Yes, "the religious services exemption" in the Copyright Law permits for the 
>performance of copyrighted religious works in the course of services at 
>places of worship or at religious assemblies."
>
>Seems there is something called "the religious services exemption" - does 
>anyone else know more about this?
>
>I have been wondering lately about copyright on religious works and the US 
>seperation of church and state idea.
>  
>
>>xan
>>
>>jonathon
>>--
>>Ethical conduct is a vice.
>>Corrupt conduct is a virtue.
>>
>>Motto of Nacarima.
>>    
>>
>
>all the best,
>
>drew
>  
>



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list