[Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC

Danyl Strype strypey at disintermedia.net.nz
Fri Sep 14 04:16:50 EDT 2012

Kia ora koutou

Thanks to those who have contributed to this discussion. I seem to be
in the minority so far, but I'm all for rough consensus and robust

On 31 August 2012 08:17, Richard Best <richard at besthancock.com> wrote:
>> NC and ND variants serve useful purposes for a range of copyright owners. <<

Can you give me some examples of copyright holders whose needs could
not be served without NC and ND? I'd be particularly interested in
examples where CC-NC-ND was someone's lifeline, as I am strongly in
favour of leaving this out of CC 4.0.

>> Removing them would be counter-productive. <<

Opponents of CC have always argued that removing any of the rights
associated with ARR copyright is counter-productive. Again, can you
offer examples?

Presumably in defence of the NC clause, Paul wrote:
>> If someone wishes to profit from your labours is it not fair that you may wish to receive some recompense. <<

It's a fair wish, but even ARR copyright cannot guarantee that.
There's no way a NC license can.

The ARR/NC model is that you do the work unpaid, and then you use
monopoly rights to make someone pay for for it, after the fact. The
problem is, nobody is going to do that if there isn't a significant
demand for your work. Having other people selling your work,
especially in markets you can't reach yourself, actually increases the
chance that someone will see your work as worth paying for, and thus
the chance you can sell your own versions.

Also, unless you have the support of a corporate-scale legal
department, you can't actually enforce an NC clause to make sure that
happens. So really, you are relying on the honesty of commercial users
and their customers anyway. I'm all for using the 'Creator-Endorsed
Mark' to encourage people to buy from you, or from vendors who are
giving you royalties voluntarily, and I think it's likely to be more
helpful than NC:

>> A society based on gifts is a long time away. <<

The evidence does not support this assertion. According to
anthropologist David Graeber (see his book 'Debt: The First 5000
Years'), the gift economy is the original human economy, and despite
the significant territory the free market and government-regulated
money economies have carved out for themselves, the gift remains the
dominant mode of human exchange. Even in modern societies, when you
include the domestic sphere, and especially the care of children, and
the elderly and inform, the vast majority of the labour performed is
not paid for with money.

Because of the difficulty, security risks, and transaction costs of
transferring money over the internet, the gift is still the dominant
form of economic activity online. Open source communities producing
free code software, and reference works like Wikipedia and Appropedia,
are the most obvious examples, but there are thousands of cases where
people perform work, and provide (non-physical) goods and services
online, without expecting a monetary return.

Then there are all the cases where the internet is used to facilitate
real-world gift exchange. Look at Freecycle.org, where people can give
away household or backyard items they don't need. Look at TimeBanks
where people use online exchanges to give gifts of their time. Look at
CouchSurfing and the Hospitality Club, and WWOOF sites, where people
use online social networking sites to share their homes with
travellers. Look at KickStarter, IndieGoGo, and our own PledgeMe,
where people gift money to artists and other creators to fund their

>> If you want to spend noble energy on something why not try to get Wikimedia Commons to accept a variety of licenses rather than them rudely demanding that people drop the NC so that Wikipedia can make things available commercially. <<

I love the irony of saying its rude to demand NC users change their
license choice, then proceeding to demand that WikiMedia change their
license choice. Even more ironically, I'm not actually demanding
anything of the sort. If NC was left out of CC 4.0, people could just
carry on using their v3.0 NC license. NC could still be used, the only
impact would be that it's no longer encouraged and endorsed by CC.

As for WikiMedia accepting NC-licensed content. It would effectively
relicense the whole of Wikipedia (and other WikiMedia projects) to NC,
not only because the SA clause would spread the NC conditions far and
wide through their works, but because of the chilling effect of
knowing that the media you want to reproduce might have an NC
component buried somewhere in it. It would stop people from charging
money to cover the costs of printing etc, which would have the effect
of making WikiMedia content unavailable to people without computers
and internet access. I struggle to see anything "noble" about causing

Like the dual-license with CC-BY-SA, it would require a consensus from
the entire Wikipedia community. In other word it's a pipe dream. For
the reasons given above, and any number of other very good reasons,
it's not *ever* going to happen.

Keen to hear more views on this.

Hei kōnā

Danyl Strype
Community Developer

"Geeks are those who partake in our culture."
- .ISOcrates

"Uncomfortable alliances are not just necessary; they reflect and
speak to the tremendous possibility of our political moment."
- Harmony Goldberg and Joshua Kahn Russell

"Both Marxists and Chicago-school libertarian economists can agree
that free software is the best model."
- Keith C Curtis

More information about the cc-nz mailing list