[cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports)

Jonathon Blake jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Tue Oct 17 04:24:36 EDT 2006

On 10/11/06, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:

[It  looks like my earlier response didn't get thru.]

> 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

Bible translations have a half life of roughly ten years. It takes
between five and ten years to develop a new translation.  It is those
expenses that are incurred prior to printing, and selling the
translation that have to be recouped.

> up an unending copyright monopoly on a work based on something that was
> surely "in the public domain."

When the KJV-1611 eas published, material either had a Crown
Copyright, or was public domain.  Crown Copyright. It was only in the
middle of the seventeenth century that copyright had a specific period
of duration.specific expiration date.

> Would it be the RIAA or these people:
> http://www.ccli.com/

Who you have to convince depends upon what is used, and how it is used.

> worship song if they know it by heart. CCLI holding organizations like us can

Operative phrase "if they know it by heart".

> > many religious organizations that use the NC licence realize that.]
> Well, they should at least read the license they are putting works under. It

It is in a footnote to the NC Guidelines.  If you didn't see that
footnote, you probably wouldn't realize it.

> 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.

The major issue there is a lack of resources:  Money and people.

In creating a list of  "orphaned works", they will also create a list
of material currently copyright, and currently public domain.

Perhaps they could interest Google in funding that project.

> > > 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.

> 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

The difference is that there is a system setup for payment of
royalties for ARR material.  I'm not sure that that system can also
include CC-NC material.


Ethical conduct is a vice.
Corrupt conduct is a virtue.

Motto of Nacarima

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list