Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Richard Cobbett" <charybdis AT deja-x.co.uk>]

"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."

In that instance, the only conceivable way that anybody is even going to
KNOW about their music is by word of mouth recommendation, since programs
like Kazaa are spectacularly useless unless you know specifically what
you're looking for. Either you punch in a particular artist, in which case
you have to have been given the tip-off, or you ask for something like
'Jazz', at which point you get a deluge.

Not to mention the incredible bad-will that would be generated from suing a
fan who went too far with what is effectively viral marketing - the whole
point of which is to get the word out about something. What this sounds like
is going back to the other day's 'Fair Use' argument, which would ultimately
come down to "Look, can you do it legally with a book or CD? There you go
then."

__________________
Richard Cobbett | http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk 
________________________________________
From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Scott Johnston
Sent: 25 March 2004 18:31
To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: License that allows private copying?

Greg London said:
Scott Johnston said:
> I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I want to sell over
> the internet.

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.




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
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Uk;Charybdis@Deja-X.;Co.
FN:charybdis AT deja-x.co.uk (charybdis AT deja-x.co.uk)
TITLE:Writer
URL;WORK:http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:charybdis AT deja-x.co.uk
REV:20040223T221114Z
END:VCARD