[Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC
bronwyn at holloway.co.nz
Fri Sep 14 23:02:27 EDT 2012
To contribute my two cents to the discussion: while I think NC presents
issues in terms of what is defined as commercial or not, I've used it in my
most recent project where I invited other artists to lend their work to a
digital 3D modelling and 3D printing process - releasing the files under
BY-NC-SA http://bronwyn.co.nz/projects/whisper-down-the-lane/ . I
specifically used NC as I found that it reassured these artists - most of
them who were unaware of the Creative Commons license system. Without it
many of them wouldn't have come on board with the project due to the
unknown risks of allowing commercial use.
There is still a lot of work to be done before CC is widely understood and
used by the general public and IMHO retaining NC will lower the barrier to
entry for those who are new to, and wary of the system.
That said, I welcome discussion of where the boundaries of "commercial use"
On 14 September 2012 22:50, Leigh Blackall <leighblackall at gmail.com> wrote:
> fit the record, i support the notion of stopping NC. it has a corrosive
> effect I'm projects like ccmixter.org where it is impossible to create a
> remix with NC works and release it in a more permissable license. As a
> result, I have observed ccmixter has very little permissable work available
> in it now.
> I don't enjoy or join the borderline moralist rhetoric of "free culture"
> though, and think it a shame that it pervades this topic of discussion. I'd
> rather check just how much CC and "free culture" pundits actually serve to
> reinforce an impoverished understanding of culture, governed under three
> notion if copyright, and the market rationale.
> On Sep 14, 2012 5:47 PM, "Danyl Strype" <strypey at disintermedia.net.nz>
>> 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
>> cc-nz mailing list
>> cc-nz at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
> cc-nz mailing list
> cc-nz at lists.ibiblio.org
> Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-nz