[cc-licenses] time-based switch to more freedom

Luis Villa luis at tieguy.org
Wed Dec 28 12:51:07 EST 2011


Note that Redmonk, a firm of software industry analysts, do something
like this via a wordpress plugin:

http://crowdfavorite.com/portfolio/progressive-license/
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/progressive-license/

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> I'm forwarding (with permission) an email exchange I had last year
> with Mathieu Paapst, who has actually used a time-based switch to more
> freedoms (unmitigated copyright to CC-BY after 2 years). This
> demonstrates that I have poor memory, but am prone to say similar
> things given right cues; more importantly it provides a bit of the
> evidence of existing practice/experimentation I was requesting.
>
> Mathieu's implementation did not require any support in the CC
> licenses themselves, but maybe it would somehow inform whether such
> support is warranted in 4.0 and if so what form it ought take and
> whether time-based switches to more freedom is something CC (the
> organization/website tools) and/or the broader community ought
> encourage, eg in lieu of licenses that never offer more than a little
> bit of freedom (if latter obviously extended discussion would be
> better on cc-community).
>
> I've added a very brief summary of a few of the options discussed on
> this list to
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Sandbox#Time-based_switch_to_more_freedom
> -- feel free to add and correct.
>
> Thanks (especially to Mathieu),
> Mike
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>  From: Mathieu Paapst <m.h.paapst at rug.nl>
> Date: Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: time limited licenses
> To: Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I think it might be a good idea to send that discussion to the list.
>
> I am not aware of any real discussion in Dutch about this topic. After
> i introduced it a few other authors replied on a blog or on twitter
> saying it is a good idea, combining the old businessmodel with
> something new. No negative reactions, so obviously no discussion.
> After that introduction i have not been involved in promoting the
> idea, basically because i have been too busy writing my pdh.
>
> Kind regards and merry christmas to you,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> Op 23 dec. 2011 om 17:05 heeft Mike Linksvayer
> <ml at creativecommons.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> Many thanks for the reminder (I see last in thread was me a little
>> more than a year ago saying bug me in a year; obviously I really
>> needed it :-\). Do you mind if I send our previous discussion to the
>> list?
>>
>> http://rechten.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2010/werkenau/boek_werkgever_en_auteursrecht.pdf
>> is the book you referred to, right?
>>
>> I see some hits for "Time switch licentie" in Dutch. Is there any
>> discussion of the idea worth taking a look at via autotranslation?
>>
>> Many thanks again, with an appropriate measure of embarrassment,
>> Mike
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Mathieu Paapst <M.H.Paapst at rug.nl> wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> I see a discussion about time limited licenses (and Founders copyright) has
>>> come up on the CC mail list. This reminded me of a discussion the two of us
>>> had in august 2010. I needed you can see below to refresh your memory ;-)
>>>
>>> Just to update you I wanted to let you know that my book has sold well and
>>> that I am happy with the way the timed license has been implemented. In one
>>> year time it will automatically become CC-By.  Now also other Dutch authors
>>> (eg. http://technologybarrier.wordpress.com/jan-stedehouder/)  have decided
>>> to use the "Time switch license" for some of  their forthcoming books, so i
>>> guess this idea might very well be appealing to authors.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>>> mr. M.H.Paapst
>>>
>>> Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
>>> Centrum voor Recht en ICT (Center for Law and IT)
>>> Oude Kijk in t Jat straat 5/9
>>> 9712 EA Groningen
>>>
>>> 050-3635433
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23-8-2010 19:12, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the thoughts and especially your concrete example. I will see
>>> what others think internally about the legal and technical feasibility given
>>> current environment. Feel free to bother me later in the year about
>>> progress, and let me know how your implementation of this idea is received.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Mathieu Paapst <M.H.Paapst at rug.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>
>>>> * Added complexity always has costs (a variety of them in this case)
>>>>
>>>> I agree, but surely this is not the number one reason for a decision not
>>>> to pursue this idea.
>>>>
>>>> * Some works that otherwise would be licensed now, would instead be
>>>> licensed in future
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure if this is a usefull argument because the opposite is also
>>>> true: some works that otherwise would never be licensed, would instead
>>>> be licensed under CC in the near future. I am not familiar with any
>>>> research that would support your or my argument, however it would be
>>>> very interesting to actually research this topic. What are your ideas on
>>>> this?
>>>>
>>>> * Present value of works licensed in the future relatively low (that's
>>>> why (c) extension doesn't make policy sense, from an economic
>>>> perspective, though obviously not as much of a problem if only a few
>>>> years in future)
>>>>
>>>> I agree. I think this argument actually supports the idea of the timed
>>>> CC release, because most works (even bestsellers) indeed loose value a
>>>> few years (and sometimes quicker!) after their release. This means that
>>>> a publisher or author in most cases will not be able to make serious
>>>> money after a few years. At that point 3 things can happen:
>>>> 1) They decide to release the work under a CC license. People who
>>>> already bought the works in recent years will probably not know about
>>>> that decision and they will not benefit from it.  Also the work has not
>>>> been licensed to them under CC.
>>>> 2) They don't want to go through all that trouble and decide to do
>>>> nothing. The works stay "locked in"  by copyright for at least 70 years
>>>> (in Europe).
>>>> 3) The works automatically falls under a CC license on a certain date.
>>>> I think at the moment most publishers and authors still go for option 2.
>>>> This is the worst option IMO.
>>>>
>>>> * Nobody that I know of has done on their own, nor third party service
>>>> facilitated, either of which would demonstrate demand -- and there's
>>>> nothing in theory preventing either
>>>>
>>>> Someone has to be first ;-) I used the method for my new book (in Dutch)
>>>> on "employers copyright". isbn 978-90-367-4472-0   I have asked some
>>>> other writers what they think of this method and have gotten positive
>>>> feedback. The reason why they haven't used it before is simple: because
>>>> of a lack of knowledge they always assumed there is only the choice for
>>>> or against using CC, and nothing in between.  You also have to keep in
>>>> mind that until now no one is promoting the timed release method to
>>>> publishers and authors.
>>>>
>>>> * Timed release has not been successful in software world -- most
>>>> prominent example, Ghostscript, stopped a few years ago -- though
>>>> there's at least one reason to believe it would be less useless for
>>>> non-versioned works
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, timed release could be more successful in the content world. For
>>>> my book i have a very simple businesscase. We have invested time and
>>>> some money to create the book. For me and my publisher the only way to
>>>> get investment back and make some money is by selling at least 200
>>>> copies of the book. Based on the sellings of previous books (around 250)
>>>> we think this will take between one and two years.  After that period
>>>> there will probably be a new book and no need to still make some small
>>>> money and keep the old one protected for 70 years after i died.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Mathieu.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea has been brought up semi-regularly through CC's history. We
>>>>> haven't pursued because:
>>>>> * Added complexity always has costs (a variety of them in this case)
>>>>> * Some works that otherwise would be licensed now, would instead be
>>>>> licensed in future
>>>>> * Present value of works licensed in the future relatively low (that's
>>>>> why (c) extension doesn't make policy sense, from an economic
>>>>> perspective, though obviously not as much of a problem if only a few
>>>>> years in future)
>>>>> * Nobody that I know of has done on their own, nor third party service
>>>>> facilitated, either of which would demonstrate demand -- and there's
>>>>> nothing in theory preventing either
>>>>> * Timed release has not been successful in software world -- most
>>>>> prominent example, Ghostscript, stopped a few years ago -- though
>>>>> there's at least one reason to believe it would be less useless for
>>>>> non-versioned works
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you say more about your usecase? Sometimes recurrent ideas like
>>>>> this eventually have their right time...
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Mathieu Paapst <M.H.Paapst at rug.nl
>>>>> <mailto:M.H.Paapst at rug.nl>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hello Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>>     For many years i have been a fan of the CC licenses, using them on
>>>>>     most
>>>>>     of my works and promoting them to publishers, authors and my
>>>>> employer
>>>>>     the university of Groningen (the Netherlands).  During those years I
>>>>>     encountered the problem that some publishers actually do like to
>>>>>     idea of
>>>>>     open content and maybe see the advantages of it, but are also scared
>>>>>     that they will not make any money on the books by giving it away for
>>>>>     free. Sadly in most cases they decide to not use the CC licenses. I
>>>>>     wanted to solv this problem because i dont think it is fair to say
>>>>>     to a
>>>>>     publisher or author "oh well, you just have to change your
>>>>>     businessmodel" and then not give them an alternative model.  This
>>>>>     is why
>>>>>     I came up (I havent seen it before) with the following CC+  idea
>>>>>     for my
>>>>>     recent book:
>>>>>     Time switch-CC is a very short licensetext, that combines the open
>>>>>     content/access model with the traditional businessmodel for
>>>>>     bookpublishers. The text lets everybody know until what particular
>>>>>     date
>>>>>     all copyrights are reserved by the author. This gives the
>>>>>     author/publisher of a book the possibility to earn money the
>>>>>     traditional
>>>>>     way during a fixed period of time.  After this period the work
>>>>>     automatically falls free under a pre-chosen Creative commons
>>>>> license.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The text i used in my book is the following, where the bold parts
>>>>> can
>>>>>     actually be changed to fit the need of the author or the
>>>>>     bookpublisher:
>>>>>
>>>>>     /TS*0113/CC-BY*
>>>>>     All rights are reserved until *January 2013*.
>>>>>     After that date the following license applies:/ /*Creative Commons,
>>>>>     Attribution (By) 3.0*/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Ofcourse I know some in the open community will regard this as
>>>>> "second
>>>>>     best", however i think it can do more good than harm.  Do you
>>>>>     think this
>>>>>     might be a concept that can be further explored by your
>>>>> organization?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Mathieu Paapst
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list