Development of Creative Commons licenses

[email AT greglondon.com]

> Op do 18-03-2004, om 11:13 schreef Evan Prodromou:
>> I have a quick question about ND content.
>>
>> Some Open Source software is not modifiable -- you're
>> not allowed to
>> change the source, even if it's available to you. TeX is
>> a good
>> example. But you _can_ distribute patch files along with
>> the source,
>> and end users can use the patches to modify the source
>> themselves.
>>
>> I take it that this isn't possible with ND content. Even
>> if the
>> document remains unmodified during redistribution,
>
>> the patch would be a derivative work.

I think patches are considered derivative works
because they are expressions based on the original
work, rather than new expressions created from scratch.

version1: "No man is an Island entire of itself"
patch: replace "man" with "one"
version2: "No one is an Island entire of itself"

The patch could not have been developed except
by looking at version 1 of the work, so I would
think that since the patch is an artistic expression
based on Version1, it is a derived work.

I don't think "derived" is tied to the structure of
words in the original writing. A patch is a totally
different structure (replace "this" with "that") from
the original (no man is an island), but the patch
is an expression based on the original, so it is
derived from the original.

The "recipe" metaphor is interesting, but recipes
are functional descriptions of how to cook physical
objects that you supposedly own all rights to,
(private property)
not other writings that someone has exclusive
rights to create derived works, so I'm not sure if
the metaphor extends into patch files or not.

if "patch" files are allowed, would it not be possible
to create audio "patch" files that say soemthing like
"ArtistA:AlbumB:TrackC:TimeStartD:TimeEndE"
"ArtistF:AlbumG:TrackH:TimeStartI:TimeEndJ"
and create a "mix recipe"?

hm, interesting. if you own the CD's, you may
own the right to create a new mix. I know I've
pasted songs onto video clips I've created.
which is a "derived work" that I doubt anyone
would argue against.

Ah, wait, the gist is that I wouldn't be able
to distribute that video clip because its a derived
work. So I wouldn't be able to distribute a patch
either, since that's a derived work too.

Copyright law is pretty much "gated"
by distribution, since you can only sue for
damages, and no one is damaged if you invest
the effort to create a derived work for your
personal use. If you create a "music patch"
and distribute that, you are not only creating
a derived work, but your also distributing
it in competition with the original artist's
sales.

The artist could argue that they could have
made a mixed version of their original and
sold it for money, but since you distribute
the 'patch' for free, your "patch" cut into
their sales, and you could be liable
for damages.

The NoDerivatives person is likely hoping that
their NoDerivs song will be free advertising
to get them noticed, and then they could make
a "dance mix" version of the song and sell
it for big bucks.

NoDerivatives is a Market Economy license,
not a Gift Economy license.

I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html#7.4.Creative%20Commons|outline