[cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports)
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Oct 11 06:56:33 EDT 2006
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 10:33 pm, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> > Not in the US at least. I had heard that it was in England. Does anyone
> > know of the status for their country?
> I've forgotten the name of the position, but there is an individual
> whose sole job function is track copyright and royalty payments on the
> KJV throughout the British Commonwealth.
> They work for Oxford University Press, which has a royal charter to
> publish the KJV.
> > As a practical matter, the crown does what with its copyright on this
> > version?
> Royalty payments. I don't know how much they earn, but if it is at
> all like the US publishers, it can be a significant amount.
And if that is the case, woulldn't these groups be better off adding 10 to 50
percent to their royalty amount for a few years and funding a copyleft
translation and then being done with these payments?
And isn't it just peachy that the church->state hookup in England has cooked
up an unending copyright monopoly on a work based on something that was
surely "in the public domain."
> > What ways do they seek royalties from it?
> This is what publishers in the US collect royalty payments for.
> * Electronic Distribution;
> * Reading at Services
> * Usage in a Bible Study group.
> * Quoted in course outlines, lesson notes, etc;
Does anyone know what ways royalties are sought on the use of the KJV?
> > So, for instance with hymns, BY-SA would get them out of this pickle
> > while BY-NC will not. I am not sure about these multi-media presentations
> > you speak
> BY-SA would work --- assuming that one can convince everybody from the
> RIAA down to the local county judge that that licence does not require
> royalty payments to be made.
Would it be the RIAA or these people:
or someone else like them? Perhaps not though, they seem more concerned with
making copies of the music rather than actual singing.
A quick trip to Google brought me to this link:
Which has this to say:
copyright laws do not say anything about us actually singing/using songs, only
about the printed/projected words and musical recordings. Anyone can sing any
worship song if they know it by heart. CCLI holding organizations like us can
distribute paper or project overheads to assist congregations in singing
songs they don't have memorized.
I don't know if that is correct as outside of the religious area that
might/would be considered a public performance, but that is what I had heard
before and was referring to.
> Calling religious organizations "commercial enterprises" in the CC
> Guidelines eliminates NC material for those churches. [Wondering how
> many religious organizations that use the NC licence realize that.]
Well, they should at least read the license they are putting works under. It
would be better if they understood it as well, but even I am guilty of not
getting key parts of what I have read and that is one reason I spend so much
time on these lists trying to learn.
> > > organization from the RIAA down to your local superior court judge.) ]
> > Yes. BY, BY-SA, perhaps BY-ND, I don't think BY-NC though. Plus, at least
> > in the US, I think there is a distinction made between "worship services"
> > and
> Not for royalty payments. :(
See above. Are you sure? Can you provide links (preferably) or other
> > One of the problems I find is that the copyright does not keep a simple
> > list of works that have fallen into the public domain. This would greatly
> > aid those looking to make use of public domain works for various reasons.
> My understanding is that the Library of congress is working on such a
> list --- in an attempt to identify "orphan works". Sooner or later
> congress is going to have pass an amendement to the copyright law, to
> take care of the issues/problems/headaches that "orphan works" are
> causing for everybody. [This is probably the biggest unintended
> consequence of the DMCA.]
To me, in these times, they should have to keep a list of all formerly
copyright works and where possible, make digital versions available online.
> > Ah, now I think I get more of what you are saying. Surely then, this is
> > an issue of educating their donors. This too can take time. BY-SA does
> > seem a
> General education, more than time.
Sure, education on the part of people who don't get it. Time to build up a
compelling pool of copyleft works. This can provide motivation...
> > natural fit for this area as it does for the area of PBS and NPR.
> > (If there are no sneaky motives behind it all.)
> > > [Their question after seeing "CC-BY-SA" is "Why donate to
> > > this non-profit, if they are going to allow others to make a buck off
> > One answer is because we are doing our best to make the world a better
> > place and this choice of a license is a part of that. there are other
> > answers. Would you care to brainstom\rm for some?
> I"ll have to get back to you on this one.
> > > * IRS rules on "profit" also come into play here. [I'll let a CPA
> > Wouldn't this exclude royalties in the first place?
> Royalties are "transactions done at an arm's length".
Live and learn.
> I'm not a CPA. I don't grok the difference. A CPA can explain it.
> > > school district can not use the material. The Red Cross can use it in
> > > a course, but the Salvation Army can not use it, even if teaching the
> > > same course, using the same instructor.]
> > Now we are back to wanting to make money as income whereas before we were
> > not wanting that but to receive donations.
> Donations aren't the issue here.
> [I was looking at who can _use_ NC material. Not who releases NC
You know, now I have confused even myself. I have gone back and I can't figure
out what I was thinking you meant when I wrote that.
That said, I think you might be a little confused or not publicly drawing a
fine enough distinction.
It seems to me that anyone/organization can use an NC work to teach a course.
It is just that the students will have to obtain copies of the works for
themselves independently. I mean, you can use an ARR work for this now can't
> Both the Red cross, and the Salvation Army are 501 (c) (3)
> organizations. However, The Salvation Army is a religious
> organization. The CC Guidelines consider (in a footnote) religious
> organizations to be commercial enterprises, and hence not eligble to
> use NC material.
> Your local school district is not a 501 (c) (3) organization, and thus
> they are considered, under the CC guidelines, to be a commercial
Does anyone at CC refute this?
> The child being homeschooled is an indivdiual, and hence is eligible
> to use the NC material.
> > > b) With software, one can get sell a "maintainance contract". I don't
> > > see an analogy to that, for text. I can teach a course once, and
> > Sure there is: As I make improvements to the text, I will send them out
> > to you post haste.
> > > there is no ongoing contract that
> > > generates $x per month, regardless of the number of times i am called.
> > You can have a stipulation that it costs $x per call to call you. What
> > would stop you from making contracts?
> For software support, sure.
> For a book / tape / video / CD what will the contract cover?
> Updates, but only if there is history of updates being provided on a
> timely basis.
Obviously, that would depend on the text.
That said, I see one of copyleft's big plusses is the reduction of costs and
not the generation of revenues. This can still give a nice positive effect to
the "bottom line".
> > > everybody can go "yippee". MIT gets a lot of good karma points. Only
> > > when legalman walks in, and points out that the local school district
> > > can't use the material, do people realize just how diabolical it is.
> > Out of curiosity and ignorance, why do you think the local school
> > district can't but another "official" university can?
> The odds are the university can't use the material, either.
Does any refute this?
> Typically, neither universities, nor school districts are 501 (c) (3)
> They are government agencies, which the CC guidelines define as being
> "comemrcial enterprises". that might not be what they meant, but that
> is what happens when one uses the definitions in those guidelines.
> > > One of the downfalls of the NC licence --- the distributor has bear
> << text deleted >>
> > > adds up fairly rapidly ( $0.10 per page, if you use your own desktop
> > > printer. $0.02 per page if you ship it off to Lulu.com.)
> > I don't think this is necessarily so. Couldn't the "end point" get an
> > electronic copy and send it off to lulu themselves for printing?
> If the electronic copy was in a format that Lulu accepts for
> publication, then, in theory, it might work. [ Lulu rules on the
> format of the text it accepts have gotten more stringent in the last
> two or so years.]
Only one person would have to prepare such a work and put it someplace like
the internet archive for everyone to be able to send in a copy to lulu for
printing though right?
> > > I've half seriously thought about proposing both a CC-EDU and CC-REL
> > Before we go there, we really need to know why BY-SA will not work for
> > them if "all the players" have a proper understanding.
> > > everybody --- including yourself --- from recouping their costs?"
> > > would the usage go up, or down?
> > I have been thinking today of writing up something to propose that CC put
> > on the site to encourage people to use BY-SA and BY licenses wherever
> > possible as it is better for the creative commons. Any thoughts?
> Have the document list the virtues, and vices of each of the dozen or
> so licences that CC offers. [The CC-Developing Nations Licence might
> be a better transitional/testing licence than the CC-ND, or CC-ND
I was thinking more of a official statement of encouragement to use licenses A
and B and not something comparative like that. I will have to chew on that a
all the best,
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!
More information about the cc-licenses