Development of Creative Commons licenses

[email AT greglondon.com]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:35:01 +0000, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2004, at 16:56, email AT greglondon.com wrote:
> > A Copyright Notice (Copyright 2004 Greg London)
> > followed by a License, (All Rights Reserved)
> > is a claim that the work is mine and that I have the
> > right to license it as I see fit.
> 
> I asked about this on the OGL list. An "authority to contribute" clause 
> has two advantages:
> 
> 1. Idiots won't believe a CC license has magic powers to allow them to 
> pirate copyrighted material.

if you try to idiot-proof your license, the world will
simply make a better idiot.

Someone recently posted to the list that some website was
cutting and pasting their CC-licensed content into their
website without their copyright notice or CC license pointers,
instead licensing the work as their own, all rights reserved.
The license is pretty clear you can't do that. but someone
was a better idiot and did it their own way.

A license is not the place for Author educational materials.

> 2. Mis-representing your right to contribute becomes a breach of 
> license, so could make some problem cases simpler in theory.

licensing someone elses work is a copyright violation.
I would think that a breach of license plus a copyright
violation would still boil down to a copyright violation.

If Infringing Ingrid posts some music that infringes
on Vanilla Ice Cream's proprietary music, and if 
Distribution Dave unknowingly puts Ingrid's music on
his website, I don't see how any promise by Ingrid
to Dave can prevent Vanilla from suing Dave for
copyright violation. 

I'm not on the OGL discussion list. Could you explain 
the "problem case" that is simplified with a 
'right to contribute' promise?