Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Scott Johnston <johnston AT vectaport.com>]

Greg London said:
> <x-tad-bigger>Scott Johnston said:
> ></x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I want to sell over
> </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> the internet.
> </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>
> Then use a CC-FreeAdvertising license, like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs,
> and be done with it. If you want to sell something, having a
> LimitedQuantityDistribution license is a waste of time.
>
>
> </x-tad-bigger>

Using a license like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs would allow someone to defeat my efforts to make some money by simply posting a copy they acquired on the net. 

I admit it is not easy to draw a distinction between private and public copying/distribution (with the Internet these two acts are intertwined, unlike conventional publishing).  You can get into games where people make a public announcement of their "private" club where private materials can be had.  But there are similar games with a Commercial/NonCommercial distinction, yet CreativeCommons forged ahead.

I can imagine other users of a CC license with a Private clause.  An independent band might want a revenue stream from micropayments for songs sold over the net, and at the same time want dedicated fans to be able to e-mail the songs to their friends, to build up their fan base.

I understand that very few people are worried about allowing or disallowing private copying.  But there is a difference between personal copying and private copying (like the difference between a personal note and a private correspondence), and to be able to make a distinction in licensing would be in some parties interest.  In the spirit of CreativeCommons, why not let me decide what I prefer, and what I think is a waste of time.

Scott Johnston