[Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC

Sutherland, Paul Paul.Sutherland at ccc.govt.nz
Sun Sep 16 05:54:48 EDT 2012

I wonder what evidence there is about the usage of CC-NZ and its various permutations full stop
Do we know how many objects from New Zealand exist with any CC licences 

Somewhere to look that up?

And how much reuse there is actually occuring
Digital New Zealand is too vague to track that I think
I also wonder if we just cannot learn to embrace diversity in licenses. 

All rights reserved is not evil. 

Just not generous



From: cc-nz-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-nz-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2012 11:58 PM
To: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion
Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC

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> wrote:

	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
			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

	cc-nz mailing list
	cc-nz at lists.ibiblio.org
	Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand

This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.

If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
sender and delete.

Christchurch City Council

More information about the cc-nz mailing list