[cc-licenses] New Generic and ports

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 9 15:34:17 EDT 2006


On Monday 09 October 2006 03:07 pm, Discussion on the Creative Commons license 
drafts wrote:
> Terry wrote:
> >Personally, I think that By-SA is a better way to avoid exploitation,
> >
>  > but I don't think it's as obvious as it should be that it
> >
> > is a good choice for that.
>
> I'll address the NC issue this way:
>
> There are a number of religious organizations that create material that
> is designed to be shared with other people. [Religious instruction,
> Tracts, Translations of Sacred Texts, etc.]
>
> What they want, is for people to be able to use/reproduce their material
> for specific situations, giving them (the original organization) credit
> for the material that is used.  What they don't want is
> people/organizations selling/charging a reproduction fee for the
> material, unless a royalty is paid to them. [Typically, these
> organizations survive because of the royalty payments they receive.]

I understand these reasons and the many more people have for wanting NC and ND 
options. I still maintain that they have little or nothing to do with a 
creative commons. They are still attempts at private preserves with signs 
posted that are a little more generous than "All Trespassers will be Shot!" 
They are far from a commons though.
>
> Obviously each organization can (and traditionally) has crafted their
> own "terms of use".  There is no uniformity in those "terms of use".
> For the religious (or educational) body that is using the material,
> trying to decipher the ins and outs of each of those "terms of use"
> addendum to the "all rights reserved" status is a time consuming process
> -- that can be difficult to implement.  [More than one church has gone
> "Oops, we can't use that translation in this document, because we quote
> 101 verses, and their licence only permits us to copy 100 verses."]
> For an organization, dealing with "small users" can cost more than the
> income from the royalty brings in.  [These are typically scaled
> according to number of copies created, and amount of text that is used.
>   some organizations simply set a base amount, and then add the per
> copy/per word charge to royalty fee.]
>
> The issue with the By-SA licence in this situation, is that the
> organization is literally cutting off their oxygen supply.  If they
> wanted to do that, they would simply use the Public Domain Licence.

That is far from proven. Perhaps they need a bit more faith? And how may are 
going to take their brothers to court over the matter of copyright violation? 
That is the basic solution I see out in the wild.
>
> To simplify matters for both sides, the use of a standard licence
> significantly lowers operating costs. 

No doubt true.

> The CC-NC licence _appears_ to fit 
> that bill. 

Yes, it does. (Except for the NC confusion issue.)

> [I'm not sure it does, because of some of the implications in 
> the current CC Guidelines about what it means.(I've written elsewhere
> about my issues with the CC take on what "NC" permits, and what it
> denies.)]
>
> Drew wrote:
>  > And if "Creative Commons" was instead called "Better Copyright
>
> Options"
>
> I think people are treating it as "Better Copyright Options", 

Yes, they do, but it still does not make for a creative commons.

> purely 
> because CC has provided several options to the standard "All Rights
> Reserved".  Instead of having to write a licence for their work, the
> creator simply grabs a licence that they think does what they want. [
> I've seen several instances where an organization has chosen a CC
> Licence, and explained why they chose it --- and the reasons for
> choosing it are totally out of phase with what the licence accomplishes.]
>
> Whilst CC would like material to be in an electronic commons, about the
> only group that thinks that way are people who sample music, or video
> --- and maybe a few gamers.

So, I have not asked that CC drop NC and ND. I did ask however if CC would 
consider developing a logo for a Free Creative Commons and putting BY-SA and 
BY under that umbrella as well as leaving it under the overall CC. That way, 
those of us who are more concerned with Free Culture and a creative commons 
can have something to point people to an promote without the confusion that 
now exists.

So far I haven't heard a peep from anyone. (Unless I missed it or promptly 
forgot it.)
>
> xan
>
> jonathon

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
http://www.nanowrimo.org/index.php
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list