[Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC

Leigh Blackall leighblackall at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 07:58:11 EDT 2012

I've wondered about this Bronwyn. d
Is there any research out there that shows NC as a transition point to more
reusable licenses? Or do people who come in on NC, stay on NC?
On Sep 15, 2012 12:33 PM, "Bronwyn Holloway-Smith" <bronwyn at holloway.co.nz>

> Hi folks,
> 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" lie.
> 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>
>> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> debate.
>>> 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:
>>> http://questioncopyright.org/creator_endorsed
>>> >> 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
>>> projects.
>>> >> 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
>>> this.
>>> 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
>>> Strypey
>>> --
>>> Danyl Strype
>>> Community Developer
>>> Disintermedia.net.nz/strype
>>> "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
>>> http://www.nationofchange.org/new-radical-alliances-new-era-1337004193
>>> "Both Marxists and Chicago-school libertarian economists can agree
>>> that free software is the best model."
>>> - Keith C Curtis
>>> http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=407
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cc-nz mailing list
>>> cc-nz at lists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-nz
>>> Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
>>> http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-nz mailing list
>> cc-nz at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-nz
>> Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
>> http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/
> _______________________________________________
> cc-nz mailing list
> cc-nz at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-nz
> Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
> http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-nz/attachments/20120915/5be3c63a/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the cc-nz mailing list